AMGEN INC

This report and other documents we file with the SEC contain forward-looking statements that are based on current expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections about us, our future performance, our business, our beliefs and our management’s assumptions. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties our business faces. The risks described below are not the only ones we face. Our business is also subject to the risks that affect many other companies, such as employment relations, general economic conditions, geopolitical events and international operations. Further, additional risks not currently known to us or that we currently believe are immaterial may in the future materially and adversely affect our business, operations, liquidity and stock price.

Below we provide in supplemental form the material changes to our risk factors that occurred during the past quarter. Our risk factors disclosed in Part I, Item 1A, of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, provide additional disclosure for these supplemental risks and are incorporated herein by reference.

Our sales depend on coverage and reimbursement from government and commercial third-party payers, and pricing and reimbursement pressures have affected, and are likely to continue to affect, our profitability.

Sales of our products depend on the availability and extent of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payers, including government healthcare programs and private insurance plans. Governments and private payers continue to pursue initiatives to manage drug utilization and contain costs. Payers are increasingly focused on costs, which has resulted, and is expected to continue to result, in lower reimbursement rates for our products and/or narrower patient populations for which payers will reimburse. Continued intense public scrutiny of the price of drugs and other healthcare costs, together with payer dynamics, have limited, and are likely to continue to limit, our ability to set or adjust the price of our products based on their value, which can have a material adverse effect on our business. In the United States, a number of legislative and regulatory proposals have been introduced and/or signed into law to lower drug prices. These include the IRA that enables the U.S. government to set prices for certain drugs in Medicare, redesigns Medicare Part D benefits to shift a greater proportion of the costs to manufacturers and health plans, and enables the U.S. government to impose penalties if drug prices are increased at a rate faster than inflation (IRA Inflation Penalties). On July 4, 2025, OB3 was enacted and included several changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Affordable Care Act policies, including provisions affecting eligibility, that, when implemented, are expected to adversely affect coverage and reimbursement for our products. On May 12, 2025, the Administration issued the Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) Prescription Drug Pricing Executive Order (MFN EO) aimed at using price benchmarks from other developed countries to set U.S. pricing targets. Subsequently, on July 31, 2025, the Administration sent letters to many pharmaceutical manufacturers, including Amgen (the July MFN Letter) as further described below, outlining steps that such manufacturers could take to advance actions consistent with elements of the MFN EO. In December 2025, we announced that we are taking actions that satisfy the components outlined in the July MFN Letter, including the Administration’s MFN pricing requests. Further, the Administration has called on Congress to enact legislation that would codify the terms that the Administration arrived at with recipients of the July MFN Letter (the MFN Terms). The details of such a legislative framework are unknown and, if enacted, such legislation could apply to a broader range of products, payers or pricing arrangements for a longer period than those resulting from the MFN Terms. Additional proposals focused on drug pricing continue to be debated, and additional executive orders or regulatory initiatives focused on drug pricing and competition may be adopted and implemented in some form. It remains unclear what further policies, legislation and/or actions the Administration, Congress, or state governments will advance with respect to other drug pricing proposals or other healthcare regulations affecting pharmaceuticals, including the MFN EO, IRA and OB3 implementation, trade policies, or state laws affecting the 340B Program or Medicaid reimbursement that could ultimately be adopted more broadly. To the extent such actions reduce or modify coverage or reimbursement for our products, increase rebates or other costs, constrain pricing decisions, or otherwise limit product use, they would have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

—Changing U.S. federal coverage and reimbursement policies and practices have affected, and are likely to continue to affect, access to, pricing of, and sales of our products

A substantial proportion of our U.S. business relies on reimbursement from federal government healthcare programs and commercial insurance plans regulated by federal and state governments. See Part I, Item 1. Business—Reimbursement, of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025. Our business has been, and will continue to be, affected by legislative actions changing U.S. federal reimbursement policy. For example, the IRA includes provisions requiring mandatory pricing in Medicare for certain drugs under Parts B and D (starting with 10 drugs effective January 1, 2026, adding 15 in 2027 and 2028, and adding 20 in 2029 and subsequent years such that, by 2031, approximately 100 drugs would be subject to such set prices). CMS has set Medicare Part D prices for ENBREL, effective January 1, 2026, and Otezla, effective January 2027, in each case at significantly lower levels. Such pricing for ENBREL has negatively impacted, and is expected to continue to negatively impact, its profitability, and such pricing for Otezla is expected to negatively impact its profitability beginning in January 2027. See Part I, Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Results of operations—Product sales. Depending on the growth and success of our medicines, other of our medicines may also be subject to selection by CMS in the next, or in a future, cycle of mandatory Medicare price setting, and we may be required to accept a price set by the government for Medicare using the process that was applied to ENBREL and Otezla. For example, Repatha may be a candidate for such Medicare price setting as early as January 2029. Further, CMS has issued policies that allow for the re-setting of prices for drugs for which it previously set a price. On April 15, 2025, the Administration issued an executive order (the April 2025 EO) that, among other directives, directs HHS to work with Congress to align the treatment of small molecule drugs and biologics in the Medicare price setting program under the IRA. It is currently unclear how such modifications would affect the timeframe in which Medicare price setting becomes applicable for selected drugs or biologics. Also under the IRA, Medicare Part D was redesigned to cap beneficiary out-of-pocket costs and reduce Federal reinsurance in the catastrophic phase; increasing cost-sharing obligations for Part D plans and manufacturers, including by requiring manufacturer discounts. Further, the IRA inflation penalties allow CMS to collect rebates from manufacturers if Medicare price increases outpace inflation, and several of our products have been subject to such IRA inflation rebates. The IRA’s Medicare price setting and Medicare redesign have had, and are likely to have, an adverse effect on our sales, our business and our results of operations, and such impact is expected to increase through the end of the decade and will depend on factors including the extent of our portfolio’s exposure to Medicare reimbursement, the rate of inflation over time, the number of our products selected for Medicare price setting and the timing of market entry of generic or biosimilar competition. Further, following the enactment of the IRA, the environment remains dynamic, and U.S. policymakers continue to demonstrate interest in health care and drug pricing changes as well as potential changes affecting intellectual property. For example, starting in 2025, CMS policy changes gave Part D plans more flexibility to substitute biosimilars for innovator products on their formularies. Implementation of OB3 also may impact access to and reimbursement of our products. For example, the Congressional Budget Office has projected that the OB3 will result in significant reductions in federal Medicaid spending over the next decade and an increase in the number of people without health insurance. These developments would place greater stress on state budgets and hospital finances, and could result in reduced access to medicines, additional pressure to further discount medicines and further growth of 340B Program utilization. The MFN EO directs HHS to pursue pricing policies that align U.S. drug prices with the prices available in certain comparably developed countries and directs a range of actions to advance that objective, including through regulatory, trade and other policy measures. In July 2025, the Administration delivered the July MFN Letter to us and a number of other manufacturers that called for drug manufacturers to: 1) extend MFN pricing to Medicaid; 2) guarantee MFN pricing to Medicaid, Medicare and commercial payers on all newly launched drugs; 3) use future increased revenues from outside the United States to lower U.S. drug prices; and 4) participate in direct-to-patient models to provide MFN pricing for certain drugs. Since the issuance of the July MFN Letter, the recipients have announced that they have reached agreement with the Administration to address the matters described in the letter. In December 2025, we announced that we are taking actions that satisfy the components outlined in the July MFN Letter, including the Administration’s MFN pricing requests. We also announced the expansion of our direct-to-patient program. As part of the Administration’s MFN pricing initiative, CMS announced the GENEROUS Model, under which we and other participating manufacturers will provide additional supplemental rebates for certain drugs to participating state Medicaid programs designed to align Medicaid net prices with prices paid in select other countries for drugs covered under the model. The effect of the GENEROUS Model on our business will depend on a number of factors, including the extent of state participation, the products subject to the model, the applicable international pricing benchmarks and the manner in which the model is implemented and administered. While these developments reflect ongoing engagement on pricing policy, the ultimate effects on our pricing, reimbursement, net sales and profitability remain uncertain in light of evolving regulatory and policy expectations.

We also face risks related to the reporting of pricing data that affect reimbursement of and discounts provided for our products. U.S. government price reporting regulations are complex and may require biopharmaceutical manufacturers to update certain previously submitted data. If our submitted pricing data are incorrect, we may become subject to substantial fines and penalties or other government enforcement actions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. In addition, as a result of restating previously reported price data, we may be required to pay additional rebates and provide additional discounts.

—Changing reimbursement and pricing actions in various states have negatively affected, and may continue to negatively affect, access to and sales of our products

At the state level, legislation, government actions and ballot initiatives can also affect how our products are covered and reimbursed and/or create additional pressure on our pricing decisions. Existing and proposed state pricing laws, which may move forward more rapidly than similar efforts at the federal level, have added complexity to the pricing of drugs. A number of states have adopted, and a number of other states continue to consider, PDABs, drug importation programs, reference pricing schemes and other drug pricing actions, including proposals designed to require biopharmaceutical manufacturers to report to the state proprietary pricing information or provide advance notice of certain price increases.

States continue to pursue laws related to price controls, referencing the IRA and seeking to regulate and prohibit restrictions on the 340B Program. For example, following the passage of the IRA, bills have been proposed in multiple states that would apply the drug price caps set by HHS for Medicare to drug prices in an individual state, and such references to IRA price caps have also been included in PDAB legislation. For Medicaid patients, states have established a Medicaid drug spending cap (New York) and implemented a new review and supplemental rebate negotiation process (Massachusetts). Seven states (Colorado, Maine, New Jersey, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington) currently use PDABs to identify drugs that pose affordability challenges, and four such states include authority for the state PDABs to set upper payment limits on certain drugs for in-state patients, payers and providers. The seven states with enacted PDAB laws are in various phases of implementation, with Colorado’s PDAB being the furthest along. The Colorado PDAB deemed three of five drugs “unaffordable,” including ENBREL, and in 2025 the Colorado PDAB established an Upper Payment Limit (UPL) substantially lower than the wholesale acquisition cost of ENBREL that would be generally applicable to all formulations of ENBREL, effective no earlier than January 1, 2027, and will be reviewed annually. Although implementation of the ENBREL UPL is preliminarily enjoined, the matter remains subject to ongoing litigation and potential appeal, and similar state actions could adversely affect access to, pricing of and sales of our products. On July 16, 2025, Washington state’s PDAB selected ENBREL for one of its first affordability reviews, and on September 16, 2026, it also selected Otezla for affordability review. Following the timeline and process established by the state for such affordability review, the manufacturer and the PDAB will undertake a number of required interactions. However, the Washington state PDAB may not establish a UPL for any prescription drug before January 1, 2027. Further, inappropriate expanded utilization of the 340B Program from broadened application of the 340B discounts has had, and is expected to continue to have, a negative impact on the Company’s product sales, business and results of operations including by increasing the risk of duplicate discounts and/or the application of 340B discounts to ineligible patients or settings. Use of the 340B Program has continued to grow, and increased purchases of our products through this program have resulted, and are expected to continue to result, in additional discounts applicable to our products, affecting our net sales and results of operations. While we have expanded our efforts to obtain pharmacy and medical claims-level data that support 340B rebate payments and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) approved our participation in its one-year 340B rebate pilot program beginning January 2027 with respect to ENBREL and Otezla, these efforts may not fully address the adverse effects of duplicate discounts and other improper 340B utilization. Twenty-three states (Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Maryland, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Nebraska, New Mexico, Colorado, Tennessee, Oregon, Vermont, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Maine, Washington and Illinois) have enacted laws with mandates on manufacturers participating in the 340B Program, and, in 2026, no fewer than 17 states have introduced similar legislation. These bills vary, but typically include provisions restricting a manufacturer’s ability to direct drugs in 340B channels, requiring manufacturers to recognize or provide access to 340B contract pharmacies, and prohibiting manufacturers from requiring the inclusion of 340B claims modifiers. With OB3’s reductions to federal Medicaid funding to states, increased pressure is anticipated for providers to find and preserve existing revenue sources at the state level, which may result in increased use of 340B contract pharmacy mandates. In Genesis Health Care, Inc. v. Becerra, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina issued an order in November 2023 enjoining the HRSA from enforcing a more restrictive interpretation against Genesis Health Care as to who qualifies as a patient under the 340B Program, which could, if adopted more broadly, affect the scope of eligibility for 340B discounts. Since this decision, various courts have reached differing conclusions on challenges to state laws regulating aspects of the 340B Program, with some courts declining to enjoin such laws and others granting relief to challengers. Certain appellate courts have issued decisions both upholding certain state 340B statutes and affirming the denial of preliminary injunctive relief to manufacturers, while litigation and appeals concerning the validity, interpretation, and enforcement of these laws remain ongoing.

The Administration has also taken steps to streamline the drug importation program and ease the process for states to obtain FDA authorization. In June 2026, the FDA authorized Colorado’s drug importation program. Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Texas and Vermont have also enacted state importation laws, and some have submitted plans for approval to the FDA. Other states could adopt similar approaches or could pursue different policy changes in a continuing effort to reduce their costs. Previously, in 2024, the FDA authorized Florida to move forward with its importation program proposal, though the state has not yet completed any significant steps towards importation within the two-year authorization window. While under federal law biologics remain exempt from such state importation activities, our small molecule products could be impacted by these initiatives.

Ultimately, existing or future state government actions or ballot initiatives may also have a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations.

—U.S. commercial payer actions have affected, and may continue to affect, access to and sales of our products

Payers, including healthcare insurers, PBMs, integrated healthcare delivery systems (vertically-integrated organizations built from consolidations of healthcare insurers and PBMs) and group purchasing organizations, are continuing to seek ways to further reduce their costs. With increasing frequency, payers are adopting benefit plan changes that shift a greater proportion of drug costs to patients. Such measures include more limited benefit plan designs, high deductible plans, higher patient co-pay or coinsurance obligations and more significant limitations on patients’ use of manufacturer commercial co-pay assistance programs. Further, government regulation of payers may affect these trends. Payers, including PBMs, have sought, and continue to seek, price discounts or rebates in connection with the placement of our products on their formularies or those they manage, and also impose restrictions on access to, or usage of, our products (such as Step Therapy), require that patients receive the payer’s prior authorization before covering the product, and/or to exclude certain indications for which our products are approved.

Further, significant consolidation in the health insurance industry has resulted in a few large insurers and PBMs, which places greater pressure on pricing and usage negotiations with biopharmaceutical manufacturers, significantly increasing discount and rebate requirements and limiting patient access and usage. See our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors—Concentration of sales at certain of our wholesaler distributors and consolidation of private payers, such as insurers and PBMs, have negatively affected, and may continue to negatively affect, our business. This high degree of consolidation among insurers, PBMs and other payers, including integrated healthcare delivery systems and/or with specialty or mail-order pharmacies and pharmacy retailers, has increased the negotiating leverage such entities have over us and other biopharmaceutical manufacturers and has resulted in greater price discounts, rebates and service fees realized by those payers from our business. Our business is also affected by policies implemented by private healthcare entities that process Medicare claims, including Medicare Administrative Contractors. Each of CVS, Express Scripts and UnitedHealth Group (among the top six integrated health plans and PBMs) has Rebate Management Organizations that further increase their leverage to negotiate deeper discounts on their behalf and for the benefit of their other customers. Federal actions to reform PBM practices have accelerated, and as these actions collectively curtail rebate-driven economics, PBMs may respond by increasing explicit service fees to offset lost revenue and adopting more restrictive formulary design and utilization management to prioritize lowest net cost. Ultimately, additional discounts, rebates, fees, coverage changes, plan changes, restrictions or exclusions imposed by these commercial payers could have a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations. See our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors—Concentration of sales at certain of our wholesaler distributors and consolidation of private payers, such as insurers and PBMs, have negatively affected, and may continue to negatively affect, our business.

—Government and commercial payer actions outside the United States have affected and will continue to affect access to and sales of our products

Outside the United States, we expect countries will continue to take actions to reduce their drug expenditures and to reduce intellectual property protections. See Part I, Item 1. Business—Reimbursement, of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025. Pressures to decrease drug expenditures may intensify as governments take actions to address budgets strained by high inflation and weak economic conditions, including in Europe, where sustained fiscal pressures continue to challenge public healthcare systems. In addition, policies under consideration or adopted in the United States that reference or tie drug prices to those paid in foreign jurisdictions, including through most-favored-nation or similar pricing approaches, could increase the significance of pricing decisions in such foreign jurisdictions. Further, the EU is currently undergoing a review and revision of its general pharmaceutical legislation that, while full implementation is not expected before 2027, has led to proposals that would reduce intellectual property protection for new products (including potentially shortening the duration of regulatory data exclusivity and orphan drug exclusivity protections), as well as change the reimbursement and regulatory landscape. International reference pricing has been widely used by many countries outside the United States to control costs. International reference pricing policies can change quickly and frequently and may not reflect differences in the burden of disease, indications, market structures or affordability across countries or regions. Other expenditure control practices, including the use of revenue clawbacks, rebates and caps on product sales, are also used in various foreign jurisdictions. In addition, countries may refuse to reimburse, or may restrict the reimbursed population for a product, when their national health technology assessments do not consider a medicine to demonstrate sufficient clinical benefit beyond existing therapies or to meet certain cost-effectiveness thresholds. For example, despite the EMA’s approval of Repatha for the treatment of patients with established atherosclerotic disease, prior to 2020, the reimbursement of Repatha in France was limited to a narrower patient population (such as those with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH)) following a national health technology assessment. Many countries decide on reimbursement between potentially competing products through national or regional tenders that often result in one product receiving most, or all of, the sales in that country or region. Failure to obtain coverage and reimbursement for our products, a deterioration in their existing coverage and reimbursement, or a decline in the timeliness or certainty of payment by payers to hospitals and other providers, has negatively affected, and may further negatively affect, the ability or willingness of healthcare providers to prescribe our products for their patients and otherwise negatively affect the use of our products or the prices we realize for them. Such failures and changes have had, and could in the future have, a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations.

Our current products and products in development cannot be sold without regulatory approval.

Our business is subject to extensive regulation by numerous state and federal government authorities in the United States, including the FDA, and by foreign regulatory authorities, including the EMA. We are required to obtain approval from regulatory authorities in the United States and other regions and countries before we, or our partners and affiliates, may manufacture, market or sell our products in those jurisdictions. Once our products are approved, the FDA and other U.S. and ex-U.S. regulatory agencies have substantial authority to require additional testing and reporting, perform inspections, change product labeling or mandate withdrawals of our products. Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements may subject us to administrative and/or judicially imposed sanctions or monetary penalties as well as reputational and other harms. The sanctions could include the FDA’s or ex-U.S. regulatory authorities’ refusals to approve pending applications, delays in obtaining or withdrawals of approvals, delays or suspensions of clinical trials, warning letters, product recalls or seizures, total or partial suspensions of our operations, injunctions, fines, civil penalties and/or criminal prosecutions.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approvals have been, and will continue to be, increasingly difficult, time-consuming and costly. Legislative bodies or regulatory agencies could enact new laws or regulations, change existing laws or regulations or change their interpretations of laws or regulations at any time, which could affect our ability to obtain or maintain approval of our products or product candidates. The rate and degree of change in existing laws and regulations and regulatory expectations have accelerated in established markets, and regulatory expectations continue to evolve in emerging markets. We are unable to predict whether and when any further changes to laws or regulatory policies affecting our business could occur, such as changes to laws or regulations governing manufacturer communications concerning drug products and drug product candidates and whether such changes could have a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations. Further, we are reliant on regulators having the resources necessary to evaluate and approve our products. In the United States, federal government shutdowns have occurred and such shutdowns have disrupted certain regulatory activities. Any future government shutdowns or workforce constraints may delay or disrupt regulatory activities, including those with respect to our ongoing clinical programs, the manufacture of our products and product candidates and product approvals.

Recent initiatives to reduce the size and budgets of government agencies, including the HHS, FDA and NIH, may adversely impact our operations. In particular, reductions in staffing and resources at the FDA could result in delays in regulatory review timelines and marketing application and supplement approvals. Changes in leadership at the FDA may also result in shifts in perspectives on the drug approval process and regulatory priorities. Further, implementation of new policy initiatives without guidance or rulemaking has reduced transparency and increased uncertainty with respect to agency actions. Additionally, funding reductions and caps on research overhead costs imposed on the NIH and its programs may result in grant funding cutbacks for scientific and disease-related research at academic institutions and research centers, and such reductions, over the longer term, may slow the overall discovery and development of new therapies and/or slow or interrupt the flow of innovation into the pharmaceutical development pipeline. These developments and others associated with the reduction of personnel and budgets at the regulatory agencies that oversee our industry and operations may adversely affect our business activities, including our ongoing and future clinical research and drug development programs, research collaborations, manufacturing activities and regulatory submissions.

Regulatory authorities have questioned, and may in the future question, the sufficiency for approval of the endpoints we select for our clinical trials. A number of our products and product candidates have been evaluated in clinical trials using surrogate endpoints that measure an effect that is known to correlate with an ultimate clinical benefit. For example, a therapeutic oncology product candidate may be evaluated for its ability to reduce or eliminate minimal residual disease (MRD), or to extend the length of time during and after the treatment that a patient lives without the disease worsening, measured by progression-free survival (PFS). Demonstrating that the product candidate induces MRD-negative responses or produces a statistically significant improvement in PFS does not necessarily mean that the product candidate will show a statistically significant improvement in overall survival or the time that the patients remain alive. In the cardiovascular setting, a heart disease therapeutic candidate may be evaluated for its ability to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, as an elevated LDL-C level has been a surrogate endpoint for cardiovascular events such as death, heart attack and stroke. The use of surrogate endpoints such as PFS and LDL-C reduction, in the absence of other measures of clinical benefit, may not be sufficient for broad usage or approval even when such results are statistically significant. Regulatory authorities could also add new requirements, such as the completion of enrollment in a confirmatory study or the completion of an outcomes study or a meaningful portion of an outcomes study, as conditions for obtaining approval or obtaining an indication. For example, despite demonstrating that Repatha reduced LDL-C levels in a broad patient population, only after our large phase 3 outcomes study evaluating the ability of Repatha to prevent cardiovascular events met certain of its primary composite endpoint and key secondary composite endpoint did the FDA grant a broader approval of Repatha to reduce the risk of certain cardiovascular events. There may also be situations in which demonstrating the efficacy and safety of a product candidate may not be sufficient to gain regulatory approval unless superiority to other existing treatment options can be shown. The imposition of additional requirements or our inability to meet them in a timely fashion, or at all, has delayed, and may in the future delay, our clinical development and regulatory filing efforts, delay or prevent us from obtaining regulatory approval for new product candidates or new indications for existing products, or prevent us from maintaining our current product labels.

Some of our products have been approved by U.S. and ex-U.S. regulatory authorities on an accelerated or conditional basis with full approval conditioned upon fulfilling the requirements of regulators. For example, the FDA has approved LUMAKRAS under accelerated approval for the treatment of adult patients with KRAS G12C-mutated locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Following our submission of the LUMAKRAS/LUMYKRAS CodeBreaK 200 Phase 3 confirmatory data in March 2023 to the FDA and EMA, we received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA and a new postmarketing requirement for an additional confirmatory study to support full approval. Regulatory authorities are placing greater focus on whether the sponsors of products originally approved on an accelerated or conditional basis have met the conditions of the accelerated or conditional approvals. If we are unable to fulfill the regulators’ requirements that were conditions of a product’s accelerated or conditional approval and/or if regulators reevaluate the data or risk-benefit profile of our product, the conditional approval may not result in full approval or may be revoked or not renewed. Alternatively, we may be required to change the product’s labeled indications, conduct an additional confirmatory clinical trial, or even withdraw the product from the market.

Regulatory authorities may also revisit, reanalyze or reinterpret data underlying the approval of our products, including data previously reviewed during the approval process and/or postmarketing safety information, and such reassessments may lead to different conclusions regarding a product’s benefit-risk profile than those reached at the time of approval. For example, we have had ongoing interactions with the FDA regarding TAVNEOS, a product the Company acquired in connection with its acquisition of ChemoCentryx in 2022, following its approval by the FDA in October 2021. TAVNEOS is indicated for the adjunctive treatment of adult patients with severe AAV in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. Hepatotoxicity is a known risk of TAVNEOS treatment for AAV and has been a subject of ongoing dialogue with the FDA. Throughout this period and up to today, the U.S. label includes a warning about hepatotoxicity and guidance for monitoring patients. In 2024, the Company provided an analysis of serious postmarketing cases of hepatotoxicity to the FDA and proactively submitted a proposed update to add VBDS to the TAVNEOS label. On January 16, 2026, the FDA requested that we voluntarily withdraw TAVNEOS from the U.S. market based on questions regarding aspects of the analysis and adjudication of certain study data that supported the original FDA approval of TAVNEOS. On January 28, 2026, following the FDA regulatory processes, we informed the FDA that we did not intend to withdraw TAVNEOS from the market as we are confident that TAVNEOS demonstrates effectiveness and a favorable benefit–risk profile. On March 31, 2026, the FDA issued a DSC in which it alerted patients and health care professionals about serious liver injury cases, including fatal cases, of DILI associated with TAVNEOS. The DSC is based on data available through October 9, 2024 and provides information about DILI and VBDS associated with TAVNEOS. Since approval in 2021, cases of VBDS have been reported, largely from Japan and none from the United States. Most patients who had VBDS were aged 65 years and older, and most cases occurred within 90 days of starting TAVNEOS. VBDS has been fatal in some of these patients. On April 29, 2026, the Company submitted a CBE-30 supplement to the FDA and, in May 2026, the U.S. label was updated to amend the hepatotoxicity warning language in the label to provide more information on cases of VBDS that have been observed in the postmarketing setting, including that cases with fatal outcomes have been reported, and modified the language regarding liver panel testing and treatment discontinuation rules. On April 27, 2026, CDER issued a proposal to withdraw approval of TAVNEOS, alleging that there is new information indicating lack of substantial evidence of effectiveness for the drug and that ChemoCentryx’s application that resulted in FDA approval contained untrue statements of material facts. On April 30, 2026, the FDA posted a notice in the Federal Register that proposes to withdraw approval of TAVNEOS and announced an opportunity for ChemoCentryx to request a hearing on this proposal. On June 1, 2026, we requested a hearing on this proposal and subsequently submitted information supporting our request on July 23, 2026, including additional real-world evidence data and data from an independent, blinded re-adjudication of certain study data that supported the FDA’s approval of TAVNEOS (the ADVOCATE data). CDER has not yet responded to our July submission. We expect that once CDER responds, we would have an opportunity to make an additional submission. The FDA may issue a decision on the proposal without granting a hearing. Decisions on the proposal and whether to grant a hearing are appealable to the United States Court of Appeals. If ultimately withdrawal of the U.S. TAVNEOS marketing authorization is required, it would be subject to a date specified by the FDA Commissioner. We cannot predict whether, or the extent to which, the FDA will consider the information we submitted sufficient to address its stated concerns regarding the reliability of the ADVOCATE data or the evidence supporting TAVNEOS’s effectiveness. In addition, in August 2026, the European Commission revoked the marketing authorization for TAVNEOS held by a licensee of ChemoCentryx in the EU. In a number of other jurisdictions, with respect to TAVNEOS, regulators have initiated reviews, advised against initiating treatment in new patients, or ordered or announced actions to revoke marketing authorizations, and pending applications and marketing authorizations have been voluntarily withdrawn. These developments could lead to additional adverse regulatory actions in other jurisdictions. The Company has engaged with regulatory authorities, continues to believe that TAVNEOS demonstrates clinical effectiveness and a favorable benefit-risk profile, and intends to follow the appropriate process to support its position. As the FDA’s statement reporting its proposal indicates, TAVNEOS will remain on the market during the pendency of this process. We cannot predict the outcome of these interactions with the FDA on this matter, and the FDA may require additional actions, including further labeling changes, warnings, monitoring, restrictions on use, postmarketing commitments or studies, and any such action or any withdrawal of regulatory approval for TAVNEOS could adversely affect our product sales of TAVNEOS, business and results of operations, including by adversely affecting us in connection with existing or future litigation, government investigations or other legal proceedings.

Regulatory authorities can also impose postmarketing pediatric study requirements. Failure to fulfill such requirements may result in regulatory or enforcement action, including financial penalties or the invalidation of a product’s marketing authorization.

Safety problems or signals can arise as our products and product candidates are evaluated in clinical trials, including investigator-sponsored studies, or as our marketed products are used in clinical practice. We are required continuously to collect and assess adverse events reported to us and to communicate to regulatory agencies these adverse events and safety signals regarding our products. Regulatory agencies periodically perform inspections of our pharmacovigilance processes, including our adverse event reporting. In the United States, for our products with approved Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS, see our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, Part I, Item 1. Business—Government Regulation—Post-approval Phase), we are required to submit periodic assessment reports to the FDA to demonstrate that the goals of the REMS are being met. REMS and other risk management programs are designed to help ensure that a drug’s benefits outweigh the risks and vary in the elements they contain. If the FDA is not satisfied with the results of the periodic assessment reports we submit for any of our REMS, the FDA may also modify our REMS or take other regulatory actions, such as implementing revised or restrictive labeling. The drug delivery devices approved for use in combination with our products are also subject to regulatory oversight and review for safety and malfunctions. See our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors—Some of our products are used with drug delivery or companion diagnostic devices that have their own regulatory, manufacturing and other risks. If regulatory agencies determine that we or other parties (including our clinical trial investigators, those operating our patient support programs or licensees of our products) have not complied with the applicable reporting, other pharmacovigilance or other safety or quality assessment requirements, we may become subject to additional inspections, warning letters or other enforcement actions, including fines, marketing authorization withdrawal and other penalties. Our product candidates and marketed products can also be affected by safety, efficacy or other clinical findings relating to product candidates or products that are similar to ours, target the same biological pathway or mechanism, or otherwise raise questions regarding an entire class of products or therapeutic approach. Such findings, including results from clinical trials conducted by third parties, may affect regulatory expectations, our clinical development strategies, or perceptions of the likelihood of success of our product candidates. Further, as a result of clinical trials, including sub-analyses or meta-analyses of earlier clinical trials (a meta-analysis involves the use of various statistical methods to combine results from previous separate but related studies) performed by us or others, concerns may arise about the sufficiency of the data or studies underlying a product’s approved label. Such actual or perceived safety problems or concerns can lead to:

•revised or restrictive labeling for our products, or the potential for restrictive labeling that has resulted, and may in the future result, in our decision not to commercialize a product candidate;

•requirements for risk management or minimization activities or other regulatory agency compliance actions related to the promotion and sale of our products;

•postmarketing commitments, mandated postmarketing requirements or pharmacovigilance programs for our approved products;

•product recalls of our approved products;

•required changes to the processes used in the manufacture of our products, which could increase our manufacturing costs and affect the availability of contract manufacturers we may utilize to assist in such manufacturing;

•revocation of approval for our products from the market completely, or within particular therapeutic areas or patient types;

•increased timelines or delays in being approved by the FDA or other regulatory bodies; and/or

•treatments or product candidates not being approved by regulatory bodies.

For example, after an imbalance in positively adjudicated cardiovascular serious adverse events was observed in one of the phase 3 clinical trials for EVENITY but not in another, larger phase 3 study, in April 2019 the FDA approved EVENITY for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture, along with a postmarketing requirement. The requirement includes a five-year observational feasibility study that could be followed by a comparative safety study or trial.

Regulatory authorities also require that our products are tested and controlled for impurities. Impurities exceeding established limits may lead to delayed product approvals or disrupt the manufacture and distribution of our products. For example, certain jurisdictions and regulatory agencies, including the FDA and EMA, require risk assessments, and if applicable, testing, for the presence of nitrosamine impurities in certain small molecule drugs, and we are following the established process of evaluating potentially impacted small molecule products.

In addition to our innovative products, we are working to develop and commercialize biosimilar versions of a number of products currently manufactured, marketed and sold by other pharmaceutical companies. In some markets outside the United States and EU, there is not yet a legislative or regulatory pathway for the approval of biosimilars. In the United States, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act provides for such a pathway. Discussions within the FDA and other regulatory authorities, and between regulatory authorities and sponsors, continue as to the evidence needed to demonstrate biosimilarity or interchangeability for specific products. See our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors—We currently face competition from biosimilars and generics and expect to face increasing competition from biosimilars and generics in the future. Delays or uncertainties in the development or implementation of such pathways, or changes in existing regulatory pathways, including degradation of regulatory standards, could result in delays or difficulties in getting our biosimilar products approved by regulatory authorities, subject us to unanticipated development costs or otherwise reduce the value of the investments we have made in the biosimilars area. Further, we cannot predict the extent to which any potential legislative or policy initiatives would affect the biosimilar pathway or have a material adverse effect on our development of biosimilars, on our marketed biosimilars or on our pursuit of interchangeability designations for any biosimilar. In addition, if we are unable to bring our biosimilar products to market on a timely basis and secure “first-to-market” or other advantageous positions, our future biosimilar sales, business and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.