VACCINEX INC

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company engaged in the discovery and development of targeted biotherapeutics to treat serious diseases and conditions with unmet medical needs, including neurodegenerative diseases, cancer, and autoimmune disorders. We believe we are the leader in the field of semaphorin 4D, or SEMA4D, biology and that we are the only company targeting SEMA4D as a potential treatment for neurodegenerative diseases, cancer, and autoimmune disorders. SEMA4D is an extracellular signaling molecule that regulates the activity of immune and inflammatory cells at sites of injury, cancer, or infection. We are leveraging our SEMA4D antibody platform and our extensive knowledge of SEMA4D biology to develop our lead product candidate, pepinemab, an antibody that we believe utilizes novel mechanisms of action. We are focused on developing pepinemab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, or AD, head and neck cancer, and pancreatic cancer. Additionally, third party investigators are studying pepinemab in clinical trials in breast cancer, as well as in “window of opportunity” studies in other indications, including head and neck cancer, and melanoma. We have developed multiple proprietary platform technologies and are developing product candidates to address serious diseases or conditions that have a substantial impact on day-to-day functioning and for which treatment is not addressed adequately by available therapies. We employ our proprietary platform technologies, including through our work with our academic collaborators, to identify potential product candidates for sustained expansion of our internal product pipeline and to facilitate strategic development and commercial partnerships.

Our lead platform technologies include our SEMA4D antibody platform and our ActivMAb antibody discovery platform. Our lead product candidate, pepinemab, is currently in clinical development for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, head and neck, pancreatic and breast cancer, through our efforts or through investigator-sponsored trials. Our additional product candidate VX5 is in an earlier stage of development and was selected using our ActivMAb platform. We believe our multiple platform technologies position us well for continued pipeline expansion and partnership opportunities going forward.

•

Our SEMA4D antibody platform is the application of our extensive knowledge of SEMA4D biology to develop our lead product candidate pepinemab for the treatment of various diseases and conditions, including neuroinflammatory and neurodegenerative diseases and cancer. Pepinemab’s mechanisms of action, blocks the SEMA4D signal and activates innate physiological mechanisms to respond to tumors or tissue injury. We first demonstrated in preclinical studies in animal models that the biological activities associated with an antibody blockade of SEMA4D can promote the repair or prevention of neurological damage in neuroinflammatory and neurodegenerative diseases and promote infiltration of activated immune cells while reducing immune suppression in tumors. A subsequent completed phase 2 study of single agent pepinemab in Huntington’s disease indicated cognitive benefit, a reduction in brain atrophy and reversal of disease-associated loss of brain metabolic activity, and a phase 2 clinical study of immunotherapy with pepinemab in combination with a checkpoint inhibitor (avelumab) supported increased benefit to patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

•

Our ActivMAb® antibody discovery platform is a proprietary human antibody discovery platform based on a novel method for expressing and presenting complex multipass membrane proteins, as well as large and diverse libraries of high affinity, full-length human monoclonal antibodies on the surface of mammalian pox viruses. We believe our ActivMAb technology offers (i) rapid generation of high affinity, full-length, human monoclonal antibodies synthesized and naturally modified in mammalian cells, (ii) expression and selection of antibodies that easily and predictably transition to manufacturing in mammalian lines, and (iii) an innovative and efficient method for selecting antibodies against multi-pass membrane proteins, an important class of pharmacological targets that have been challenging for antibody selection. Our product candidate CHS-114, and anti-CCR8 antibody was licensed to Coherus and is currently in clinical development for cancer immunotherapy. VX5 was generated by our ActivMAb platform and is currently in preclinical development for autoimmune disorders. We intend to continue to utilize our ActivMAb platform to identify additional product candidates for our own pipeline development and for strategic collaborations. We have also entered into antibody discovery agreements with third-parties for their use of the ActivMAb platform and intend to continue to commercialize this platform.

Vaccinex Product Pipeline

We initiated a new clinical trial of pepinemab in combination with Keytruda® for front-line recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer (R/M HNSCC) in collaboration with Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and a new clinical trial of single agent pepinemab in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in 2021.

Pepinemab

Pepinemab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds and blocks the signaling activity of SEMA4D. We are advancing pepinemab which we believe has novel mechanisms of action for the treatment of cancer and certain neurodegenerative diseases, including AD and Huntington's disease, or HD. As of December 31, 2023, over 600 patients have been treated or enrolled in seven Phase 1 clinical trials and three Phase 2 clinical trials of pepinemab in separate indications.

Alzheimer’s Disease

We initiated a clinical study of pepinemab as a potential treatment for AD in late 2020. This study of pepinemab in AD, which we refer to as “SIGNAL-AD,” will be based on our prior research of neurodegenerative disease mechanisms in which we demonstrated in preclinical models that SEMA4D triggers activation of both astrocytes and microglia, the innate inflammatory cells of the central nervous system, or CNS, and that antibody blockade of SEMA4D ameliorated cognitive decline in an AD disease model. In December 2019, we announced a funding grant of $750,000 from the Alzheimer’s Association and an award in the form of investment in our common stock of up to $3 million from the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, each in support of SIGNAL-AD. We received two-thirds of the funding in the second half of 2020 and the remainder in Q3 2023 when enrollment was completed. The chronic activation of astrocytes and microglia has been implicated as an important disease mechanism in AD, HD, progressive MS, as well as in other neurodegenerative disorders. The design for this study is based on evidence from the SIGNAL clinical trial in HD showing that treatment with pepinemab induced a sharp increase in glucose metabolism in the brain during HD disease progression as detected by conventional FDG-PET imaging. Previous studies in AD have shown that decline in glucose metabolism correlates with cognitive decline. Recently, it has been reported that FDG-PET is superior to the more established Aβ amyloid-PET as an indicator of cognitive decline in early AD, which gives us greater confidence in relying on the evidence from our SIGNAL clinical trial in HD to inform the design of the SIGNAL-AD trial. In April 2023, we reached our enrollment target for the Phase 1b/2 SIGNAL-AD study evaluating pepinemab as a potential treatment for people with mild dementia due to AD. It is anticipated that all 49 participants will have completed 12-months of treatment by June 30, 2024, and SIGNAL-AD topline data will be reported in the second half of 2024.

Cancer

Through December 31, 2023, pepinemab has been studied as a treatment for advanced solid tumors, including in clinical trials in HNSCC, NSCLC, osteosarcoma, and melanoma. We have demonstrated in preclinical tumor models that SEMA4D regulates infiltration of immune precursor cells into tumor tissue. Our preclinical data suggest that blocking SEMA4D promotes infiltration of CD8+ cytotoxic T-cells that can eradicate the tumor while simultaneously altering the tumor microenvironment to reduce immunoinhibitory myeloid suppressor and T regulatory cells. We have also demonstrated in preclinical models the potential for synergy between pepinemab and different checkpoint inhibitors when used in combination. We completed a first Phase 1 clinical trial of pepinemab as a single-agent cancer therapy and released top-line data in October 2014. Pepinemab was well tolerated in this clinical trial.

In October 2017 in collaboration with Merck KGaA, we initiated the CLASSICAL–Lung clinical trial, a Phase 1b/2 clinical trial of pepinemab in combination with avelumab, (also known as Bavencio) an inhibitor of the PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint pathway, in patients with NSCLC who have not previously been treated with immunotherapy. In July 2018, an additional cohort of patients who failed prior immunotherapy was added to the trial. The CLASSICAL-Lung trial consisted of a dose escalation phase and a subsequent dose expansion phase. We completed enrollment in the dose expansion phase in August 2019 and released topline data for this trial at the virtual American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) conference in June of 2021. A manuscript reporting the results of this study was published in the journal Clinical Cancer Researchin April of 2021. In the first quarter of 2023, Vaccinex initiated a Phase 1b/2 single-arm, open label study to evaluate pepinemab in combination with avelumab (Bavencio®) as second line combination therapy for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC, TPS4195, NCT05102721). The Company-sponsored study will employ a Bayesian Optimal Interval (BOIN) Design in the Phase 1b segment and a Simon two stage assessment in the Phase 2 segment and is expected to enroll 40 subjects. The trial rationale is supported by data from prior studies suggesting that pepinemab may reduce immune suppression in the TME, rendering “cold” tumors such as PDAC to become “hot” and enhancing efficacy of ICIs such as avelumab. The trial will be conducted at the University of Rochester and is being primarily funded by a Gateway Discovery Award (administered by the Conquer Cancer Foundation/ASCO).

In February 2018, The Children’s Oncology Group, or COG, with financial support from the National Cancer Institute, initiated a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of pepinemab as a single agent in pediatric patients with recurrent, relapsed, or refractory solid tumors, including osteosarcoma. In June 2018, a Phase 1 Investigator Sponsored Trial (IST) of pepinemab in combination with Yervoy® or with Opdivo® began at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center in patients with advanced melanoma who have progressed on prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 based therapies. Enrollment in this study has since been halted due to resource limitations at UCLA, however, several patients received extended treatment for an additional 2 to 3 years. In addition, Emory University has initiated separate Phase 1 IST “window of opportunity” studies evaluating pepinemab as a single agent and in combination with ipilimumab or nivolumab in melanoma and HNSCC. We also presented interim analysis of these window of opportunity studies at ASCO, in June 2020 and at ESMO and SITC cancer conferences in 2022. An investigator sponsored trial has also been initiated in May 2022 at Moffitt Cancer Center evaluating pepinemab in combination with adoptive dendritic cell therapy in patients HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC, TPS1113, NCT05378464). Up to 28 patients will receive a pulsed combination of dendritic cell vaccines (DC1) plus trastuzumab (an anti-HER-2 antibody) and pepinemab followed by treatment with HER2-specific T cells and lymphodepletion. The study rationale builds on results of the CLASSICAL Lung study of pepinemab and avelumab in lung cancer and the observation that pepinemab appears to modulate the TME by increasing effector cell infiltration and reducing immunosuppression.

In the second half of 2021, in collaboration with Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co. Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, we initiated the KEYNOTE-B84 clinical trial, a Phase 1b/2 clinical trial of pepinemab in combination with pembrolizumab (also known as KEYTRUDA™), an inhibitor of the PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint pathway, for front-line treatment in patients with R/M HNSCC. KEYNOTE-B84 is planned to be an open-label, multi-center phase 1b clinical study, enrolling patients whose tumors express low PD-L1 (CPS<20) or high PD-L1 (CPS ≥20). As prespecified in the study protocol, the Company analyzed interim data from the first 36 patients in the study evaluating pepinemab and KEYTRUDA™ in immunotherapy naïve patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The study was based on preclinical and clinical studies demonstrating that antibody blockade of semaphorin 4D (SEMA4D) in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) promotes infiltration of CD8+ cytotoxic T cells and inhibits the recruitment and function of myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSC) in tumors, enabling enhanced ICI efficacy. The study results showed that pepinemab in combination with KEYTRUDA™ resulted in an approximately 2X increase in objective responses (ORR) and median progression free survival (PFS) in patients with hard-to-treat PD-L1-low tumors, those with combined positive score <20 (CPS<20), compared to historical response rates for ICI monotherapy in this population. ORR for the CPS<20 population was 21.1% with median PFS of 5.79 months, which is almost 2X that of historical response to checkpoint monotherapy in this population, ORR 11.9% and PFS 2.2 months. In contrast, patients in the CPS>20 subgroup (n=17) responded similarly to historical ICI monotherapy data. Biopsy data suggest that treatment-induced formation of highly organized lymphoid aggregates, tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS), correlate with disease control. TLS are characterized by a high density of B cells, antigen-presenting dendritic cells and activated T cells including stem-like TCF-1+, PD-1+, CD8+ T cells whose expansion and differentiation has previously been shown to be central for response to checkpoint inhibitors. The safety of pepinemab in combination with KEYTRUDA™ is regularly reviewed by an independent safety committee and has to date been found to be well tolerated. We expect top-line data in 2024.

Huntington’s Disease

We have currently paused our research efforts for HD, which is a neurodegenerative genetic disorder that typically manifests in mid-adult life, as we focus on our development of Alzheimer’s research. Our study of pepinemab in HD is based on our prior research of neurodegenerative disease mechanisms, in which we demonstrated in preclinical models that SEMA4D triggers activation of both microglia and astrocytes. As discussed above, the chronic activation of microglia and astrocytes has been implicated as an important disease mechanism in HD, AD, progressive MS, and other neurodegenerative disorders. We initiated the SIGNAL study, a Phase 2 clinical trial, in July 2015 in early manifest and late prodromal (pre-manifest) HD patients. This clinical trial builds on preclinical studies in an animal model of HD and safety data from a Phase 1 dose-escalation clinical trial of pepinemab in MS patients that we completed in November 2014. The SIGNAL study has an adaptive design, and interim analysis of Cohort A data for 36 randomized patients was completed in April 2017. Data from this cohort showed that treatment with pepinemab induced a sharp increase in glucose metabolism in the brain during HD disease progression as detected by conventional FDG-PET imaging. On the basis of this data, the design of the Cohort B study was modified, and enrollment in Cohort B was completed in December 2018. Cohort B includes a total of 265 subjects in two cohorts: 179 patients who have early manifest disease, and 86 who are late prodromal. All subjects were randomized to receive monthly infusions of either pepinemab or placebo for 18 months in double-blind fashion without crossover. Topline data for the SIGNAL Phase 2 trial was reported on September 22, 2020 and more detailed analysis of the data was presented at medical conferences on October 30, 2020, April 30, 2021, and September 10, 2021. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, has granted both Orphan Drug designation and Fast Track designation to pepinemab for HD. Final data from the SIGNAL trial was published in Nature Medicine 28: 2813-2193 in 2022. To advance planning for a potential phase 3 study of pepinemab in HD, we requested a Type C meeting with the FDA to discuss study design and key endpoints. We received the requested clarifications regarding suitable endpoints for regulatory review from the FDA, and these will be incorporated in a possible future phase 3 study.

VX5

We discovered VX5 using our ActivMAb platform. VX5 is a human antibody to CXCL13, a molecule that regulates the formation of immune tissues, and is currently in preclinical development for the treatment of autoimmune disorders. In preclinical studies, anti-CXCL13 antibodies, such as VX5, have been shown to reduce CXCL13-induced B cell and T helper cell migration, which would otherwise contribute to inflammatory and autoimmune responses. Therapeutic administration of anti-CXCL13 antibody has also been demonstrated to prevent disease progression in mouse models of MS and rheumatoid arthritis.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to efficiently discover and cost-effectively develop targeted biotherapeutics that will provide safe, substantial and sustained benefits to patients with serious diseases and unmet medical needs. The principal elements of our business strategy are to:

•

Develop pepinemab as a therapy in Alzheimer’s disease. We initiated a randomized, placebo-controlled, multi-center phase 1/2a clinical study of pepinemab in AD, or the SIGNAL-AD trial, in 2021. This trial is based on evidence from the SIGNAL clinical trial in HD that showed treatment with pepinemab reduced cognitive decline and induced a sharp increase in glucose metabolism in the brain during HD disease progression as detected by conventional FDG-PET imaging. Previous studies in AD have shown that decline in glucose metabolism correlates with cognitive decline. We enrolled the first patient in mid-2021 with topline data anticipated in 2024.

•

Develop pepinemab in combination with checkpoint inhibitors as a therapy for patients with cancer. We have completed the CLASSICAL–Lung clinical trial, a Phase 1b/2 clinical trial of pepinemab in combination with avelumab, an inhibitor of the PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint pathway, in patients with NSCLC. Results demonstrated increased infiltration of cytotoxic T-cells into tumors and treatment appeared to provide an approximately two-fold increase in objective clinical responses relative to previously reported single agent avelumab. An unexpected finding was that NSCLC has a relative paucity of myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSC). Since inhibition of these immunosuppressive cells is a second major mechanism of action of pepinemab, we, in collaboration with Merck Sharp & Dohme, have initiated a new study of the combination of pepinemab with KEYTRUDATM in first-line R/M HNSCC, a cancer indication in which MDSC are believed to play an important role in immune resistance, and have analyzed interim data from the first 36 patients in the study.

•

Develop pepinemab as a therapy in Huntington’s disease. We have currently paused our research efforts for HD. We initiated the SIGNAL study, a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 clinical trial in subjects with late prodromal and early manifest HD in July 2015. The SIGNAL study has an adaptive design, and interim analysis of Cohort A data for 36 randomized patients was completed in April 2017. On the basis of this data, the design of the Cohort B portion of the trial was modified, and enrollment was completed in December 2018 with a total of 265 subjects. Top-line data was released on September 22, 2020. Although the study did not meet its prespecified primary endpoints, it showed evidence of treatment related reduction in cognitive decline and brain atrophy and provided information that we believe will be valuable for the design of a potentially pivotal phase 3 study. We received requested clarifications regarding suitable endpoints for regulatory review from the FDA, and these will be incorporated in a possible future phase 3 study.

•

Leverage our existing SEMA4D collaborations and establish new partnerships to explore the promise of combination therapies in additional disease indications. We plan to build on our current research collaborations and establish new partnerships with pharmaceutical companies to explore various applications of our SEMA4D technology and continue to study pepinemab in combination with other cancer and neurodegenerative disease therapies currently in development. These are complex diseases, and it is reasonable to anticipate further benefits to combination treatments as we have seen in cancer immunotherapy.

•

We intend to continue to utilize our ActivMAb platform to identify additional product candidates for our own pipeline development and for strategic collaborations. We have also entered into antibody discovery agreements with third-parties for their use of the ActivMAb platform and intend to continue to commercialize this platform.

As illustrated below, each of our two major platforms, SEMA4D and ActivMAb, is the subject of multiple existing research collaborations. We are actively engaged in discussions regarding additional collaborations.

Background on the Immune System and Antibodies

The immune system is a powerful mechanism to defend and protect the body from pathogens, such as viruses, parasites and bacteria, and provides surveillance against cancers, by recognizing and responding to their characteristic antigens. The power of the immune system can, however, also present dangers, as misdirected immune responses can cause devastating autoimmune diseases. To address these issues, the immune system has evolved to encompass two interacting arms, an aggressive arm that serves to eradicate infection and has the potential to accelerate pathology in neurodegenerative diseases and to kill tumors and a regulatory arm that serves to limit the magnitude and duration of immune responses. The balance of activity between these two arms has evolved to allow effective responses to the numerous pathogens in our environment, the primary threat to the integrity of organisms. Advances in our understanding of these regulatory mechanisms and our ability to develop drugs that modulate their effects, such as checkpoint inhibitors, has enabled important advances in immunotherapy. We believe our SEMA4D antibody platform offers novel mechanisms of immune modulation that could further enhance the beneficial effects of immunotherapy in regulating immune responses in neurodegenerative diseases and cancer.

Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies are typically derived from genes encoding specific natural antibodies and are produced by introducing those genes into specially adapted mammalian manufacturing cell lines. The antibody’s ability to bind specifically to a target or antigen is also referred to as its specificity. Using this mechanism, antibodies can tag foreign substances for attack by other immune system cells or neutralize the targets directly. In treating diseases such as neurodegenerative diseases and cancer, researchers may create antibodies that bind toxic protein antigens or to target immune regulatory mechanisms to increase the magnitude and duration of protective immune responses.

Our SEMA4D Antibody Platform

Our SEMA4D antibody platform is the application of our extensive knowledge of SEMA4D biology to develop our lead product candidate pepinemab for the treatment of various diseases and conditions, including to promote immune cell infiltration and activity in tumors as well as to inhibit neuroinflammatory and neurodegenerative diseases. Pepinemab, a molecule that blocks the signaling activity of SEMA4D, is currently in clinical development by us for the treatment of AD, HNSCC, PDAC, as well as by third parties in ISTs for breast cancer and in multiple “window of opportunity” studies in other indications. We initiated a clinical trial of pepinemab as a single agent in AD in the second half of 2021, in combination with Keytruda for R/M HNSCC, and intend to use our SEMA4D platform to address additional cancer indications and other diseases in the future.

Pepinemab

Pepinemab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds and blocks the signaling activity of SEMA4D, which is an extracellular signaling molecule that regulates the migration and activation of immune and inflammatory cells at sites of injury, cancer or infection. SEMA4D signals through the plexin-B1, or plexin-B2, (PLXNB1 or PLXNB2) receptors expressed on many precursor cells. Binding of SEMA4D ligand to the extracellular domain of plexin-B1 receptors triggers activation of its cytoplasmic Rho-GTPase activating domain. This leads to inactivation of Rho kinase which, through a chain of events, normally prevents depolymerization of the actin cytoskeleton. The PLXNB1 receptor molecule can activate the R-Ras protein, which regulates adhesion to the extracellular matrix. These two activities, cell adhesion and cytoskeletal reorganization, control the migration and differentiation of precursor cells. Precursor cells play an important role in maintaining health and repairing tissue damage in the adult organism by migrating to affected target locations in the body where they can differentiate into mature functional cells. In the case of an immune precursor cell, the mature cell can engage in protective activity against a tumor or infection. Other precursor cells are dedicated to repairing tissue damage, such as precursor cells that can remyelinate nerve axons at a demyelinated lesion. Depending on the nature of a precursor cell and its natural signaling cascade, SEMA4D can inhibit or activate cell migration and/or maturation.

As a result, pepinemab’s ability to affect SEMA4D’s regulation of precursor cells may be relevant to multiple disease indications. In cancer, we believe pepinemab will promote the infiltration and activation of immune precursor cells in the tumor. In AD, we believe pepinemab will mobilize precursor cells that repair damage to myelin and neurons and prevent chronic activation of inflammatory cells of the brain, the astrocytes and microglia that are implicated in neurodegenerative diseases.

We have performed numerous preclinical studies in animal disease models to investigate the mechanisms of action of anti-SEMA4D antibodies. Pepinemab is a humanized version of our antibody used in preclinical studies. The mouse antibody that we use in our pre-clinical studies and the humanized antibody we use in our clinical trials are closely related and have very similar properties, including specificity and affinity. For convenience, they are both referred to as pepinemab in our preclinical studies and in the clinical trials described in this Annual Report.

Collaboration and IST Agreements

Merck Sharp & Dohme

In September 2020, we entered into a clinical trial collaboration and supply agreement with Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co. Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, to test pepinemab in combination with pembrolizumab checkpoint inhibitor in R/M HNSCC patients for first-line treatment, which is the KEYNOTE-B84 clinical trial. We sponsored the investigational new drug application, or IND, for this study and Merck provides Keytruda for the trial. The agreement does not convey rights or a license to Merck to either manufacture or sell pepinemab. The agreement also does not convey rights or a license to us to either manufacture or sell pembrolizumab, a Merck compound. All clinical data, including raw data and results, generated under this agreement will be jointly owned by us and Merck. As prespecified in the study protocol, the Company analyzed interim data from the first 36 patients in the study. We expect top-line data in 2024.

Merck KGaA

In October 2016, we entered into a clinical trial collaboration and supply agreement with Merck KGaA through its subsidiary, Ares Trading S.A., to test pepinemab in combination with avelumab checkpoint inhibitor in NSCLC patients whose tumors have progressed on or following chemotherapy, which is the CLASSICAL–Lung clinical trial. An additional cohort of patients whose tumors failed prior immunotherapy was added in July 2018. The clinical trial concluded in the second quarter of 2020 and a clinical study report was completed which terminated our collaboration in NSCLC. A manuscript reporting the results of this study was published in the journal Clinical Cancer Research April 5, 2021; DOI:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-4792.

We sponsored the investigational new drug application, or IND, for this study and Merck KGaA shared in the cost of the trial. A second collaboration was initiated to test pepinemab in combination with avelumab as second line combination therapy for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC, TPS4195, NCT05102721). Avelumab is being provided by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and Pfizer, Inc. for the PDAC NCT05102721 study. Either party may elect to extend the collaboration to one additional cancer indication under certain circumstances. The agreement does not convey rights or a license to Merck KGaA to either manufacture or sell pepinemab. The agreement also does not convey rights or a license to us to either manufacture or sell avelumab, a Merck KGaA compound. All clinical data, including raw data and results, generated under this agreement will be jointly owned by us and Merck KGaA.

Children’s Oncology Group

In December 2017, we entered into an agreement for an Investigator Sponsored Clinical Trial Agreement, or IST with Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, or CHOP, on behalf of COG, to provide pepinemab for a Phase1/2 clinical trial to study pepinemab as a single agent in treating younger patients with recurrent, relapsed, or refractory solid tumors, including osteosarcoma. We provided pepinemab drug and limited funding for clinical laboratory testing of patient samples, but all other clinical trial expenses are funded by the National Cancer Institute, or the NCI, through a grant to COG. CHOP, on behalf of COG, owns the clinical data developed or obtained in connection with this IST, except that we will own data developed by or obtained from us or on our behalf and that Vaccinex and CHOP, on behalf of COG, will jointly own certain pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data and biomarker analysis data. We possess an exclusive right under the agreement to purchase any of the data owned by CHOP. No license rights to pepinemab are conveyed to CHOP, COG or the NCI by this agreement. The study has been completed and a manuscript entitled, “A Phase 1/2 Study of Pepinemab in Children, Adolescents, or Young Adults with Recurrent or Refractory Solid Tumors: A Children’s Oncology Group Consortium Report” has been accepted for publication in Pediatric, Blood and Cancer (2024). Pepinemab was well-tolerated in both children and adolescents and one 8-year-old boy with osteosarcoma had ongoing disease stabilization for greater than 2 years. However, the frequency and duration of objective responses did not support continued development as a single agent.

Emory University

We have entered into three IST agreements with Emory University to provide pepinemab and financial support for three separate investigator sponsored clinical trials. Due to difficulties related to patient recruitment, one of these trials has been abandoned. Patient recruitment in the other two trials has been successful and the studies are continuing. (1) a Phase 1 clinical trial evaluating pepinemab as a single agent and in combination with ipilimumab or nivolumab in pre-surgical patients with resectable head and neck cancer; and (2) a Phase 1 clinical trial evaluating pepinemab as a single agent and in combination with ipilimumab or nivolumab in pre-surgical patients with resectable melanoma. Both studies will evaluate the effect of the regimens on the immune profile in the tumor microenvironment and in peripheral blood. These trials are “window of opportunity” studies in which patients receive treatment between their cancer diagnosis and surgical resection. To support these studies, we are providing pepinemab and combination antibodies for neoadjuvant administration and limited financial support for site clinical operations prior to resection and clinical laboratory testing of patient samples. Emory University will own the clinical data resulting from these ISTs, and we will have the right to access and use this data for any lawful purpose. No license rights to pepinemab are conveyed to Emory University by these agreements.

Huntington Study Group (SIGNAL)

In March 2015, we entered into a Clinical Trial Management Agreement with The Huntington Study Group, or HSG, to provide general CRO-related services for the SIGNAL study in HD, including management of subcontractors involved in the clinical trial, at approximately 30 clinical sites in the United States and Canada, each covered by a standard clinical trial agreement between us, as IND sponsor, HSG and the clinical site. Payments are on a fee for service basis. We will retain ownership of all clinical data generated from this agreement, while HSG and its subcontractors, including the clinical sites, will have the right to use limited data generated from the study for internal educational and non-commercial purposes. No license rights to pepinemab are conveyed to HSG by this agreement. Top line data from this study was released on September 22, 2020 and further analysis was presented at medical conferences on October 30, 2020, April 30, 2021 and September 10, 2021. A manuscript reporting detailed study results was published in Nature Medicine 28:2183-2193 in 2022.

Pepinemab in Alzheimer’s disease

We are studying pepinemab as a treatment for AD, which is a neurodegenerative genetic disorder that typically manifests in mid-adult life. Our study of pepinemab in AD is based on our prior research of neurodegenerative disease mechanisms, where we demonstrated in preclinical models that SEMA4D triggers activation of both microglia and astrocytes, the innate inflammatory cells of the CNS, and that such activation can be reduced or prevented by treatment with pepinemab. The chronic activation of microglia and astrocytes has been implicated as an important disease mechanism in AD, HD, progressive MS, and other neurodegenerative disorders.

We believe that neuroinflammation and the mechanism of action of pepinemab is relevant to pathogenesis of AD and other slowly progressive neurodegenerative diseases (e.g., HD, PD, progressive MS). There are, of course, important differences among these diseases in the specific stress-inducing event that initiates pathology and the brain regions affected. The Phase 1b/2 SIGNAL-AD study enrolling patients with mild-AD is currently in progress. Enrollment of 49 patients is complete and topline data is expected in the second half of 2024. Pepinemab could be a promising therapeutic as a single agent, as was observed in HD and described below. Alternatively, it could be employed in combination therapy to augment efficacy and possibly reduce disease related neuroinflammatory effects.

The Role of SEMA4D in Neurodegenerative Disease

SEMA4D plays a crucial role in neuroinflammatory and neurodegenerative diseases through at least three independent mechanisms: (i) inducing the activation of innate inflammatory cells of the CNS, including both astrocytes and microglia, which is associated with long term damage to nervous tissue; (ii) inhibiting migration and differentiation of precursor cells that have the ability to repair demyelinated lesions and to replenish depleted astrocytes; and (iii) inducing the breakdown of the tight junctions between endothelial cells that seal the blood-brain barrier and prevent degradation of the cellular and molecular environment of the brain. We believe, therefore, that SEMA4D is an important factor for inflammatory activation of both astrocytes and microglia.

SEMA4D Upregulation Signals Neuronal Stress and Triggers Inflammatory Transformation of Astrocytes and Microglia

Although the clinical manifestations of AD clearly indicate neuronal deficits, the close interaction and interdependence of glial cells and neurons allows for the possibility of a glial origin to neuronal pathology by initiating and/or amplifying neuronal dysfunction. We have found SEMA4D is upregulated (i.e., more highly expressed) in neurons of AD patients (Fig. 1).

Astrocytes are among the most numerous cells in the brain equal or greater in number than neurons. A single astrocyte makes numerous connections to other cells through cytoplasmic extensions. These connections allow astrocytes to provide trophic support in the form of growth factors and nutrients to neurons and other brain cells. Among other important astrocyte functions, the blood vessels that feed the brain are 100% covered with specialized cytoplasmic extensions of the astrocyte that express glucose transporter and facilitate uptake of glucose, the main source of energy in the brain, from circulation. In addition, astrocytes are responsible for recycling approximately 80% of the free excitatory transmitter, typically glutamate, released at nerve synapses. This is believed to be an important function to reduce the potential for spurious signals and the danger of excitotoxicity induced by high concentrations of excitatory transmitter that can lead to loss of function and degeneration of post-synaptic neurons. Astrocyte activation is common to a number of different neurodegenerative diseases, including AD, HD and progressive MS. When astrocytes are activated, their cytoskeletons partially collapse, and they lose cell contacts. This can cause loss of trophic support and increased concentrations of excitotoxic transmitters leading to neurodegenerative effects. We observed that astrocytes express high levels of plexin-B1 receptors for SEMA4D. To determine the effect of SEMA4D signaling on astrocytes, we isolated purified rat astrocytes in culture and investigated the effect of adding recombinant SEMA4D. Quantitative measure of the level of polymerized actin, or F-actin, demonstrated that SEMA4D signaling through receptors on astrocytes results in rapid dissolution of 60% of polymerized F-actin, which in turn results in partial collapse of the cytoskeleton and corresponding loss of cell contacts.

Binding of recombinant SEMA4D to cultured human astrocytes triggers receptor-mediated astrocyte reactivity, including changes in astrocyte morphology, expression of key transporters for glutamate recycling and energy metabolism and impairs astrocyte function of glucose uptake (Fig. 2). These results suggested that in the presence of SEMA4D, the ability of astrocytes to perform normal functions, such as the interaction with brain capillaries to facilitate glucose transport, and the ability to cradle synapses with cytoplasmic extensions that express glutamate receptors and that are responsible for recycling 80% of free glutamate, would be degraded. We believe that, in these cases (i) SEMA4D is upregulated as a signal of stress at sites of neuronal injury, (ii) this triggers inflammatory activation of plexin-B1 positive astrocytes in close proximity to neurons, and (iii) astrocytes abandon their normal role in glucose transport and glutamate recycling and, importantly, switch to secretion of inflammatory cytokines. Blocking SEMA4D signaling could, therefore, prevent or reduce disease-associated inflammatory transformation and loss of normal astrocyte functions during neuroinflammatory disease progression in AD. Clinical data from the SIGNAL-HD study described below supports this hypothesis.

Figure 1. SEMA4D is Upregulated in Neurons in AD Patients

Figure 2. Pepinemab (VX15) restores expression of key metabolic transporters

and astrocyte function of glucose uptake.

In addition to astrocytes, the second major type of innate inflammatory cells of the CNS is the microglia. We have demonstrated in preclinical studies that SEMA4D activates microglia at the site of demyelinated lesions. We have also demonstrated that SEMA4D inhibits the migration of oligodendrocyte precursor cells, which are capable of repairing damage to demyelinated lesions.

As demonstrated in Figure 3, spinal cord sections were stained for expression of a characteristic marker of oligodendrocyte precursor cells known as NKx2.2. Oligodendrocyte precursor cells (also known as glial progenitor cells) can migrate and differentiate to repair damaged myelin and to replenish astrocytes that together support the function of neurons. It was observed that oligodendrocyte precursor cells are randomly distributed and do not migrate to the site of a demyelinated lesion in control animals (red stained cells in left panel) and are, therefore, unable to repair damage. SEMA4D appears to inhibit migration of these precursors because they do migrate when animals are treated with pepinemab (right panel). In contrast, SEMA4D promotes activation of microglia at the site of lesions as demonstrated by inhibition of activation upon treatment with pepinemab. As illustrated below, in Figures 3 and 4, the left panel represents sections of spinal cord from animals treated with control antibody and the right panel represents similar sections from animals treated with pepinemab. In Figure 3, the sections are stained for NKx2.2 (red), a marker of oligodendrocyte precursors, while in Figure 4, the sections are stained for Iba1 (brown), a marker of microglial activation.

Figure 3. Pepinemab Promotes Migration of Oligodendrocyte Precursor Cells

Figure 4. Pepinemab Inhibits Activation of Microglia

Data in preclinical mouse model of AD

Glial dysfunction and associated neuroinflammation contributes to and amplifies neurodegenerative pathology of neurodegenerative processes involved in AD. Glial activation is coincident with neuronal upregulation of SEMA4D in human AD autopsy brain tissue (Fig. 1), as well as in brains of mouse AD model, CVN (APPSwDI/NOS2-/- ). The CVN mouse incorporates mutations of Aβ precursor protein that are characteristic of familial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) together with a mutation that reproduces conditions of brain inflammation associated with AD. The CVN model displays some of the primary pathologies associated with Alzheimer’s disease: Aβ plaques, hyperphosphorylated tau causing neurofibrillary tangles and cell death (neuronal loss), and consistent spatial memory impairment and neurovascular deficits.

Reactive astrocytes in CVN mice are characterized by changes in morphology and gene expression such as reduced expression of glutamine synthetase (GS), a key astrocytic enzyme required for glutamate neurotransmitter recycling. Treatment with anti-SEMA4D antibody preserved normal astrocyte morphology and GS expression in hippocampal astrocytes of CVN mice. Mice treated with SEMA4D blocking antibody restored levels of inhibitory synapse neurons in CVN mice. In addition to neuropathological changes, SEMA4D antibody treatment significantly reduced deficits in learning and memory observed in the radial arm water maze test to levels observed in wild-type non-diseased mice (Figure 5). These data were published in Journal of Neuroinflammation 19:200 in 2022.

Figure 5. SEMA4D antibody treatment inhibits reactive astrocytes and restores neuronal and cognitive deficits in CVN mouse model of AD.

Completed Phase 1 Clinical Trial for Safety

The safety and tolerability of pepinemab was initially assessed in a Phase 1 dose-escalation clinical trial in MS patients. In November 2014, we completed a multi-center, double-blind, placebo controlled, single-ascending dose Phase 1 safety and tolerability clinical trial of intravenous pepinemab in 50 adult patients with MS. Pepinemab was well tolerated in this Phase 1 clinical trial. No dose-limiting toxicity was found in five cohorts with doses ranging from 1 to 20 mg/kg. Only one serious adverse event has been reported and was deemed unrelated to the study treatment. This same clinical trial also provided quantitative data that allowed us to estimate the half-life of the pepinemab antibody in patients as approximately 20 days. We believe this extended half-life will allow us to treat subjects once a month. We selected HD as our initial indication for pepinemab because of the unmet need in the indication, as well as well-characterized natural history, and nearly 100% diagnostic precision based on presence of mutations. The data from the

Phase 1 MS safety clinical trial has contributed to the safety database to enable initiation of an ongoing Phase 1b/2 clinical trial in AD and a separate completed Phase 2 clinical trial in HD.

The Unmet Medical Need for Alzheimer’s Disease

AD is a multifactorial disease with genetic forms and risk factors but also sporadic presentations, with symptoms typically appearing at age of mid-60’s or later (though early onset AD may occur), and a clinical presentation largely characterized by a progressive cortical dementia manifesting as memory loss, cognitive impairment, and functional decline. AD pathology starts with aggregation of amyloid plaques and deposition of neurofibrillary tangles (tau protein deposits) in the parahippocampal gyrus, and spreads more widely in the temporal lobe and ultimately to other cortical regions with amyloid deposition as well. Recent FDA-approved drugs targeting amyloid are not yet widely available and are associated with significant potential risks. Therefore, treatment remains largely directed towards management of symptoms and improving quality of life.

According to the Alzheimer’s Association, an estimated 6.9 million Americans age 65 and older are living with Alzheimer's in 2024. Seventy-three percent are age 75 or older. As the size of the U.S. population age 65 and older continues to grow, so too will the number and proportion of Americans with Alzheimer's or other dementias. By 2050, the number of people age 65 and older with Alzheimer's may grow to a projected 12.7 million, barring the development of medical breakthroughs to prevent or cure AD. Dementia care is a complex maze with interactions between primary care providers, specialists, social services, medication management and caregiver support. Navigating this maze is difficult and often frustrating for people living with Alzheimer's or other dementia and their caregivers. The development of a disease-modifying therapy could encourage patients to seek out treatments.

Current Approaches to the Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease

The current competitive landscape in AD offers medications that are aimed at treating the symptoms of the disease. Cholinesterase inhibitors, including Donepezil (Aricept®), Rivastigmine (Exelon®), Galantamine (Razadyne®) and glutamate regulators including Memantine (Namenda®) can be prescribed to treat symptoms related to memory and thinking. Patients experiencing non-cognitive symptoms, such as sleep disturbances or agitation may be prescribed Suvorexant (Belsomra®) or Brexpiprazole (Rexulti®) respectively. These drugs are modestly effective and may cause a host of side effects including serious side effects of increased risk of death in older adults with dementia-related psychosis, as well as nausea, loss of appetite, headache, confusion, dizziness, impaired alertness and motor coordination, worsening of depression or suicidal thinking, complex sleep behaviors, sleep paralysis, compromised respiratory function. Therefore, the need for disease modifying therapies that can reverse or stop the underlying pathology of the disease is considered the most important area of need in the AD space. In AD, many trials of therapies aimed at lowering amyloid or tau have had mixed results though these trials have led to regulatory approval of two monoclonal antibodies, Aduhelm® or aducanumab in 2021 and Leqembi ® or lecanemab in January 2023. Nonetheless, these therapies are modestly effective, not widely available, and are associated with significant potential risks (e.g. amyloid-related imaging abnormalities). While specific disease mechanism targeting therapies for neurodegenerative disorders remain critical, therapies that target common alternative mechanisms such as neuroinflammation may offer meaningful benefits.

Our Approach to Alzheimer’s Disease

We are studying pepinemab for the treatment of early AD. We believe SEMA4D impacts the pathology of AD through multiple mechanisms, making SEMA4D a promising target for therapeutic development in this disease. Our primary goal is to develop a treatment that will prevent or delay the progress of, or reduce the symptoms of, the disease in patients with early Alzheimer’s dementia.

Pepinemab in Huntington’s Disease

The Unmet Medical Need for Huntington’s Disease

HD is a neurodegenerative genetic disorder that typically manifests in mid-adult life. People with HD experience profound neurodegeneration predominantly in the basal ganglia and cortex, which are brain areas critically involved in motor control and cognitive function. Individuals afflicted with HD develop involuntary movements, known as chorea, as well as significant cognitive and psychiatric problems. The gene inheritance is based on a single mutated autosomal dominant gene. Therefore, an individual with one mutated copy of the gene inherited from either parent will develop the disease. In general, if an individual has the disease, each of his or her children is at 50% risk of inheritance. Thus, each diagnosis may affect more than just one person with devastating impact on the family. To date, there is no FDA-approved disease modifying therapy and treatment is largely directed towards management of symptoms and improving quality of life.

According to the Huntington’s Disease Society of America, there are over 30,000 people in the United States who have been clinically diagnosed with HD and an additional 250,000 people that are at risk of inheriting a mutated HD allele from their parents. Less than 5% of at-risk individuals pursue predictive genetic testing, due to a lack of effective treatments. However, because there is a 50% chance of inheriting the mutated allele, approximately 125,000 of people in the at-risk pool will ultimately develop HD. The development of a disease-modifying therapy could encourage at-risk patients to seek out testing.

Current Approaches to the Treatment of Huntington’s Disease

Despite extensive medical research into the pathogenesis of HD, little progress has been made in developing disease-modifying treatment. Treatment is mainly limited to palliative measures, which evolve as the disease advances. Sometimes, medications to treat some symptoms generate side effects that worsen other symptoms, which complicates the overall treatment regimen and necessitates regular reviews of medications by physicians and updates to the treatment protocol.

To treat movement disorders, clinicians often prescribe antichoreic drugs, such as tetrabenazine or Teva’s Austedo® (deutetrabenazine), or neuroleptics. Tetrabenazine and Austedo® are specifically approved by the FDA to reduce the involuntary jerking and writhing movements associated with HD. However, tetrabenazine carries serious side effects, including worsening or triggering depression, insomnia, drowsiness, nausea and restlessness. Austedo®, a deuterated form of the drug, was approved in April 2017 and may have reduced side effects. Commonly used neuroleptics include Haldol® (haloperidol) and clozapine, which can suppress unwanted movements but can also worsen involuntary contractions and muscle rigidity. Other drugs prescribed to alleviate motor symptoms include anti-seizure medications such as Klonopin® (clonazepam) and anti-anxiety drugs like Valium® (diazepam), although these drugs alter consciousness and carry risks of dependence and abuse.

For psychiatric symptoms, clinicians prescribe antidepressants, antipsychotics, or mood-stabilizing drugs depending on the severity and particular constellation of symptoms for each patient. The antidepressants commonly used in treating HD patients are serotonin reuptake inhibitors, such as Lexapro® (escitalopram), Prozac® (fluoxetine), or Zoloft® (sertraline). Antipsychotics may also be used to suppress violent outbursts, agitation, and other symptoms of mood disorders or psychosis. Mood-stabilizing drugs can treat bipolar symptoms when they are present, including lithium and anticonvulsants, such as valproic acid and lamotrigine. These drugs can cause weight gain, tremors, or gastrointestinal symptoms. To supplement medications, psychotherapy can help HD patients cope and manage behavioral problems while also fostering communication with family members.

Our Approach to Huntington’s Disease

We believe SEMA4D impacts the pathology of HD through multiple mechanisms, making SEMA4D a promising target for therapeutic development in this disease. While we have paused our research efforts for HD as we focus our efforts on AD, our primary goal for HD is to develop a treatment that will prevent or delay the progress of, or reduce the symptoms of, the disease in early manifest patients.

Clinical Development of Pepinemab in Huntington’s Disease

Early Studies and Preclinical Data

We have conducted preclinical studies evaluating the pepinemab antibody as a therapeutic agent for multiple neurological indications. We examined pepinemab in a transgenic mouse model of HD, finding that weekly pepinemab administration prevented brain degeneration in areas affected by HD. Pepinemab-treated mice also exhibited improvements in a range of behavioral and cognitive tests, but not motor tests. We also examined changes induced by pepinemab in a mouse model of MS, observing substantial reductions in neuroinflammatory processes and a sparing of myelin degradation. These preclinical results were important proof-of-concept steps necessary to move forward with clinical trials in multiple neurological indications.

HD is based on a single mutated gene, and transgenic animals have been engineered to express this gene and such animals are found to reproduce many symptoms similar to those of the human disease. We and our academic collaborators evaluated the pepinemab antibody as a potential therapy in the yeast artificial chromosome, or YAC, transgenic mouse model that expresses full-length mutated human huntingtin gene, or YAC128, and reproduces many of the characteristic signs and symptoms of HD. Starting at six weeks of age, YAC128 and normal wild type, or WT, control mice received either pepinemab or isotype-control antibodies weekly for 47 weeks. Before the mice reached 12 months of age, behavioral assessments and tissue analyses were performed to determine any benefits from treatment with the pepinemab antibody. As illustrated below in Figure 6, the results demonstrated a significant reduction in the loss of cortical and white matter volume in the brain of the transgenic animals. Loss of brain volume is a characteristic neuropathology in these animals that is also observed in both HD and progressive MS patients.

Figure 6. Pepinemab Treatment Significantly Inhibits Cortical and Corpus Callosum Degeneration in Brains of YAC128 Mice

Cortical (grey matter) volume and Corpus Callosum (white matter) volume were determined in transgenic (YAC128) and WT control mice that had been treated with either control or pepinemab antibody from six weeks of age until sacrifice at 12 months. Open bars are normal mice, closed bars are YAC128 mutant mice.

The mice were evaluated in an open-field activity test, which measures the presence of anxiety-like behavior as reflected in their tendency to avoid open space in the center of their cage. Control YAC128 transgenic mice had both a significantly reduced number of entries into the center and spent less time in the center. Pepinemab-treated YAC128 mice had no significant difference in number of center entries from WT control mice, suggesting that pepinemab can reduce anxiety-like behavior. The study found similar results using total time spent in the cage center as its behavioral measure.

In another cognitive test, investigators found that pepinemab antibody treatment improved spatial memory in a novel object location test in the YAC128 mouse model of HD. Mice are naturally curious and if an object is placed in their cage, they will investigate it through nose probes, or “sniffing.” As demonstrated in Trial 1 in Figure 7, if two different shaped objects are placed at one end of the cage, they investigate both equally because both objects are novel. As demonstrated in Trial 2 in Figure 7, if the mouse is removed and one of the objects is relocated to the opposite end of the cage, then when the same mouse is reintroduced, it will preferentially investigate the object in the now novel location. This is illustrated in the WT control group of Figure 7, where the ratio of investigating the two different objects is represented by the white bars for Trial 1 and by the grey bars for Trial 2. However, as illustrated in YAC128 control group, if this same sequence of trials is performed with YAC128 mice, the ratio of investigating the two different objects is indistinguishable in Trial 1 and Trial 2. This suggests that these mice do not remember which location is old and which location is novel. In contrast, as illustrated in YAC128 anti-SEMA4D group, if YAC128 mice have been treated with pepinemab, then these mice show a memory trial performance indistinguishable from WT control mice. The data suggest that pepinemab may improve the working spatial memory deficits that are found in some neurological disorders such as HD and AD.

Figure 7. Pepinemab May Improve Spatial Memory in the YAC128 Mouse Model

Control WT mice preferentially explore an object in a novel location, while untreated YAC128 mice do not. Treatment of YAC128 with pepinemab antibody preserved this WT behavior.

SEMA4D is Progressively Upregulated during HD progression

Although the clinical manifestations of HD clearly indicate neuronal deficits, the close interaction and interdependence of glial cells and neurons allows for the possibility of a glial origin to neuronal pathology by initiating and/or amplifying neuronal dysfunction. We have found that during underlying disease progression in HD transgenic mice, SEMA4D is upregulated (i.e., more highly expressed) in neurons (Fig. 8). We have observed similar upregulation of SEMA4D in neurons at progressive stages of disease in HD patient autopsy specimens (Fig 9). As described above, blocking SEMA4D signaling could prevent or reduce disease-associated inflammatory transformation and loss of normal astrocyte functions during HD progression. In the case of HD, neuronal stress might be the result of accumulation of aggregates of mutant huntingtin protein. We believe that neuronal stress in other slowly progressive neuroinflammatory and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s may follow from a different physiological cause but result in similar inflammatory response.

Figure 8. SEMA4D is Progressively Upregulated in NeuN+ Neurons of HD Mice

•

SEMA4D expression is upregulated in HD mice as disease progresses, compared to low expression in wild type, or WT, control.

•

SEMA4D is upregulated early in disease, prior to onset of symptoms, which occurs at approximately 5 months of age in Q175 HD transgenic mice.

•

SEMA4D co-localizes with NeuN+ neurons.

The figure above shows NeuN/Sema staining of the retrosplenial cortex region of the Q175 knock-in mouse model of HD and age-matched WT littermate controls. Representative images are shown from analysis of three mice per time-point. M in this figure represents months of age. Figure 1 in Evans et al., Journal of Neuroinflammation 19:200 (2022)

Figure 9. SEMA4D is Upregulated in Neurons during Underlying HD Progression in Patients

SIGNAL Phase 2 Clinical Trial in HD

The SIGNAL study was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of pepinemab in early-stage and prodromal HD patients. SIGNAL was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of intravenously administered pepinemab. We initiated the clinical trial in July 2015. We engaged the Huntington Study Group, HSG, a contract research organization specializing in HD, to assist in site selection and trial management. The trial had an adaptive design in two cohorts. The initial Cohort A of 36 patients was treated monthly for six months with either pepinemab or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. At the end of six months, the placebo group crossed over to pepinemab so that all subjects were treated with the drug until month 12. Interim analysis of Cohort A data for 36 randomized patients was completed in April 2017. Data from this cohort showed that treatment was well-tolerated and that pepinemab induced a sharp increase in glucose metabolism in the brain during HD disease progression as detected by conventional FDG-PET imaging accompanied by signs of cognitive improvement in patients with manifest disease symptoms. On the basis of this data, the design of the Cohort B study was modified, and enrollment in Cohort B was completed in December 2018. Cohort B enrolled a total of 265 subjects in two groups: 179 patients in group 1 (B1) who have been diagnosed with early manifest disease, and 86 in group 2 (B2) who are late prodromal. All subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive monthly infusions of either pepinemab or placebo for 18 months in double-blind fashion without crossover. Following discussions with FDA, coprimary endpoints for this clinical trial were pre-specified to include a family of two cognitive assessments developed for HD, and the treating physicians Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) following 18 months of treatment. A Composite Index of the full HD-Cognitive Assessment Battery (HD-CAB) was an exploratory endpoint. Additional endpoints included imaging by MRI to detect brain atrophy and FDG-PET imaging in a subset of patients to detect changes in brain metabolic activity which is known to decline during the normal course of disease progression. The FDA’s Division of Neurology Products has granted both Orphan Drug and Fast Track designation to pepinemab (VX15/2503) for Huntington’s disease.

Topline data for the SIGNAL study was released in September 2020 and followed by a more detailed report at medical conferences on October 30, 2020, April 30, 2021 and September 10, 2021 and publication of full study results in Nature Medicine 28:2183-2193 in 2022. As with any well-designed phase 2 study, the main goal of the SIGNAL study was to identify a patient population that can benefit from the selected treatment and to characterize endpoints that can be employed to evaluate treatment benefit in this population. Although the study did not meet pre-specified co-primary endpoints, we believe that evidence of treatment benefit to patients is reflected in key cognitive assessments for the total population as well as in CGIC scores of patients who were somewhat more advanced in disease progression at the time of enrollment, support continued development of pepinemab in both HD and potentially other slowly progressive neurodegenerative diseases, including AD, that are characterized by cognitive decline, brain atrophy and reduced metabolic activity. Key observations from pre-specified and post-hoc analyses include:

•

Pre-specified exploratory volumetric MRI analysis of brain in patients with early manifest disease demonstrate treatment related reduction in brain atrophy. In addition, FDG-PET imaging shows increased brain metabolic activity (Figure 10).

•

Significant treatment benefit for pepinemab as reflected in the HD-Cognitive Assessment Battery (HD-CAB) Composite Index (Figure 11).

•

A further signal of benefit was provided by analysis of treating physicians’ Clinical Global Impression of Change in a subpopulation of patients with somewhat more advanced disease progression (TFC 11) at the time of enrollment. We believe that this reflects the difficulty of discerning clinical changes very early in disease progression because of the slow initial rate of change which then accelerates over time.

Because of the important role of astrocytes in glucose transport, we investigated the effect of treatment with our humanized anti-SEMA4D antibody, pepinemab, on FDG-PET of different brain regions of interest (ROI) in patients with early manifest HD based on diagnostic confidence level and a Total Functional Capacity score of 11-13 (top of the functional scale).

Figure 10: Pepinemab reverses decline in FDG-PET in Early Manifest HD patients

Figure 10 shows graphical representations of changes in FDG-PET signal as a percentage of baseline over the full 18-month treatment period for different brain regions of interest including at the top composite scores for an extended frontal lobe and composite cortical regions. Statistically significant differences between pepinemab and placebo are indicated by an asterisk (*) p-value of less than 0.05 as reported in Nature Medicine (2022), 28(10):2183-2193.

As seen in the left panel of Figure 10, FDG-PET SUVR declines over 18 months across almost all brain regions in the early manifest HD patient population. This decline is reversed by pepinemab treatment in most cortical regions but, importantly, not in striatum (caudate and putamen). Decline in FDG-PET has been variously attributed to either reduced glucose uptake by reactive glial (mostly astrocytes) and to loss of energy intensive synaptic activity due to neurodegeneration. We suggest that under conditions of widespread change between astrocyte homeostatic and reactive states, the observed decline in FDG-PET SUVR in cortical regions and its reversal by pepinemab treatment is due to effects on SEMA4D-dependent astrocyte reactivity. However, in striatum, a brain region known to undergo neurodegeneration early during HD-progression at a rate 4 times greater than other brain regions, it appears that decline in FDG-PET SUVR may be predominantly associated with degeneration due to direct effects of toxic forms of mutant huntingtin that are not SEMA4D-dependent and, therefore, not reversed by pepinemab. This suggests a two-stage model of neurodegenerative pathology. An initial mutant huntingtin-dependent (or, in AD, Aβ amyloid or Tau-dependent) phase that damages neurons and leads to upregulation of SEMA4D followed by a SEMA4D-dependent neuroinflammatory phase that significantly amplifies and aggravates damage.

Cognition

In multiple surveys, HD patients and their families have identified cognitive decline as a major concern during disease progression. The Huntington’s Disease Cognitive Assessment Battery (HD-CAB) is based on six different measures of change in different cognitive domains that has been employed by HD investigators to assess cognitive decline. The SIGNAL study was designed to employ HD-CAB as a primary cognitive endpoint. We were, however, encouraged by FDA to instead adopt a novel two-item cognitive family comprised of the OTS and PTAP measures from HD-CAB, primarily, it seemed, to avoid use of a composite score of six assessments. Unfortunately, the SIGNAL study was not designed to be powered for this substitute endpoint and the effect of pepinemab treatment on OTS missed significance (one-sided p=0.028) and for PTAP only showed a trend (p=0.06). As originally planned, however, the study was well-powered for HD-CAB and indicated a highly significant treatment effect (p=0.007). This was consistent with significantly reduced apathy severity (p=0.017) which several studies in HD and AD have shown to be correlated with cognition. Similarly, multiple studies have reported that decline in FDG-PET correlates with cognitive decline and disease progression in AD. Pepinemab is, to our knowledge, the only agent that has been shown to reverse both metabolic and cognitive decline in a neurodegenerative disease.

As previously reported for AD, onset of symptomatic disease is associated with loss of “learning effects”. It is, therefore, of particular interest that patients with early manifest HD do not show the improvement in performance on sequential administration of HD-CAB that is evident in cognitively normal late prodromal subjects (Figure 11). Importantly, the ability to learn from experience is restored and HD-CAB performance improves in early manifest patients during the first six months of pepinemab treatment. We suggest that “learning” is intrinsically significant to patients and could serve as a surrogate endpoint reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. This is an important consideration for design of a possible future phase 3 study.

Figure 11: Pepinemab treatment restores significant “Learning” effects detected by HD-CAB.

Figure 11: Pepinemab treatment improves cognitive scores of HD Cognitive Assessment Battery (HD-CAB) composite in HD subjects with early manifest disease. The difference between placebo and pepinemab treatment was significant, with a one-sided p-value = 0.007. Note: no change is observed in late prodromal group with pepinemab treatment as reported in Nature Medicine (2022), 28(10):2183-2193.

In view of the two-stage model of neurodegenerative pathology suggested by differential effects of pepinemab treatment on FDG-PET in cortical regions vs striatum during early HD progression, we considered whether cognitive treatment effects might be most evident in patients with early evidence of cognitive decline. Analysis of the effect of treatment on HD-CAB was, therefore, stratified by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score at baseline. As seen in Figure 12, a significant treatment effect (p=0.056) was observed in the MOCA<26 subgroup (cognitive deficit) during the first 6-months of treatment but was not discernible in the MoCA≥26 subgroup (normal cognition).

Figure 12: Significant HD-CAB treatment effects as early as 6-months in the HD patient subpopulation with early signs of cognitive deficits (MoCA<26).

Nature Medicine (2022), 28(10):2183-2193.

Pepinemab in Cancer

We have studied pepinemab as a treatment for advanced solid tumors, including NSCLC, HNSCC and PDAC. Our preclinical data suggests that blocking of SEMA4D promotes infiltration of immune cells that can eradicate the tumor. We completed a Phase 1 clinical trial of pepinemab as a single-agent cancer therapy and released top-line data in October 2014. We initiated the CLASSICAL–Lung clinical trial of pepinemab in combination with avelumab, a checkpoint inhibitor of the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway, in October 2017 in patients with NSCLC who have not been previously treated with immunotherapy and in patients who have failed prior immunotherapy. Near topline data for the CLASSICAL–Lung clinical trial was reported at ASCO in June of 2020 and a manuscript reporting the results was published in Clinical Cancer Research April 5, 2021; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-4792. Clinical trials in HNSCC and PDAC are ongoing.

The Role of SEMA4D in Cancer

As illustrated in Figure 13, we have demonstrated in preclinical research that many tumors express a high concentration of SEMA4D at the invasive tumor margin, the growing edge of the tumor, creating an apparent barrier.

Figure 13. SEMA4D Expression Concentrated at Tumor Growing Edge

Low magnification images show intense SEMA4D staining at the invasive tumor margins (brackets) of colorectal and breast tumors in mice.

In preclinical studies, we have also determined that treating tumor-bearing animals with anti-SEMA4D antibody leads to breakdown of this gradient of SEMA4D expression as shown in Figure 14. This made it possible to determine whether the SEMA4D “barrier” inhibits infiltration of tumoricidal immune precursor cells into tumors.

Figure 14. Pepinemab Breaks Down SEMA4D Barrier in Colon26 Tumor

As illustrated in Figure 15, treating tumor-bearing animals with anti-SEMA4D results in enhanced infiltration of CD8+ T cells into the tumor. Figure 16 shows that this enhanced infiltration results in a statistically significant increase in both the total number of CD3+ T cells and CD8+ T cells and in tumor-specific CTL among tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, or TIL, recovered from the mice treated with anti-SEMA4D antibody as compared to mice treated with a control antibody.

Figure 15. Anti-SEMA4D Antibody Increases Cytotoxic T Cells in Tumor

Figure 16. Anti-SEMA4D Antibody Enhances Tumor-specific Cytotoxic TIL

In addition to increased infiltration of T cells, infiltration of other functionally important immune cells, including cells expressing the CD11c marker and/or the F4/80 marker of antigen presenting cells, or APC, are also increased as illustrated in Figure 17.

Figure 17. SEMA4D Gradient at Invasive Tumor Margin Regulates Migration and

Maturation of Antigen Presenting Cells

Anti-SEMA4D treatment enhances infiltration of pro-inflammatory cells.

Importantly, as illustrated in Figure 18, the change in cell populations induced by anti-SEMA4D treatment enhances secretion of tumoricidal cytokines (IFN γ, TNF α) and chemokines (CXCL9) that recruit activated CTL while simultaneously reducing secretion of molecules that promote infiltration of immunosuppressive cells (MCP-1, CXCL1, CCL17). This results in increased APC and CTL that can give rise to tumoricidal effects and reduces cells such as regulatory T cells, or Tregs, Myeloid Derived Suppressor Cells, or MDSC, and M2 type Tumor Associated Macrophage, or TAM, that express the characteristic CD206 marker (Figure 17). Neutralizing SEMA4D with anti-SEMA4D antibody, therefore, results in greater immune infiltration as illustrated in Figures 15-17 and has the potential to give rise to greater tumor destruction. This is consistent with the Phase 1 clinical trial of pepinemab as a single-agent cancer therapy in patients with solid tumors (e.g., colorectal, breast, lung, renal and bladder cancers) in which patients with higher levels of circulating B and T cells were observed to have longer progression-free survival. We believe the level of circulating B and T cells is a surrogate marker for residual immune competence in these heavily pre-treated patients.

Figure 18. Anti-SEMA4D Treatment Shifts the Balance of Cytokines and Chemokines in the Tumor Microenvironment

Anti-SEMA4D treatment enhances secretion of tumoricidal Th1 cytokines (IFN γ, TNF α) and chemokines (CXCL9) that recruit activated cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL), while reducing chemokines that promote infiltration of immunosuppressive cells (MCP-1, CXCL1, CCL17).

As illustrated in Figures 19A and B, we have also demonstrated in mouse models of colorectal and head and neck cancer that the pepinemab antibody amplifies the benefits of other treatments that increase anti-tumor immunity, including, in particular, the checkpoint inhibitors anti-CTLA-4 and anti-LAG3. Five separate studies performed by us showed tumor regression on average of approximately 80% and as high as 100% of mice in the colorectal tumor model (Figure 19A). We understand this synergy as the combined effect of an agent, anti-CTLA-4, which allows increased expansion of tumor-specific T cells in tumor draining lymph nodes and anti-SEMA4D that increases infiltration of these expanded T cells into tumor. Checkpoint inhibitors may also increase T cell activity intratumorally. Similar benefits are seen in the head and neck cancer model and in a colon cancer model in combination with anti-LAG3 (Figure 19B).

Figure 19A. Combination Treatment with Anti-CTLA-4 and Anti-SEMA4D in a Colorectal Tumor

Single agent treatments (anti-SEMA4D and anti-CTLA-4) induce a modest inhibition of tumor growth but act synergistically in combination (anti-CTLA-4 + SEMA4D) to cause tumor regressions.

Figure 19B. Anti-SEMA4D Antibody Enhances Activity of Immune Checkpoint Antibodies:

Combination with anti-CTLA-4 and with anti-LAG3 in Preclinical Cancer Models

The Unmet Medical Need for Cancer

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. Cancer follows only heart disease as the leading killer in the U.S. The American Cancer Society estimated that in 2024 approximately 2 million Americans would be diagnosed with cancer and 611,720 would die from the disease.

Current Approaches to Cancer Treatment

Standard treatment regimens for cancer vary widely by tumor type and location as well as by stage of the cancer, health of the patient and several other factors. Multiple treatment options include surgery, radiation, chemotherapy and administration of other anticancer agents. A cancer patient often receives treatment with a combination of these methods. For patients with localized disease, surgery and radiation therapy are particularly effective. Systemic drug therapies are generally used by physicians in patients who have cancer that has spread beyond the primary site or cannot otherwise be treated through surgery. The goal of these therapies is to damage and kill cancer cells or to interfere with the molecular and cellular processes that control the development, growth and survival of cancer cells. In many cases, drug therapy entails the administration of several different drugs in combination. Over the past several decades, drug therapy has evolved from non-specific drugs that kill both healthy and cancerous cells, to drugs that target specific biological activities related to cancer.

Immunotherapy is one of the most promising therapeutic approaches for cancer because it has the potential to be targeted, is generally lower in toxicity compared to chemotherapy, and can potentially improve survival in end-stage disease. The anti-cancer immune response may lead to the restoration of immune surveillance, which has the potential to contain the metastatic process and limit future relapse or tumor escape. Immunotherapy could bring patients closer to a curative treatment, something that has not been achieved with other targeted oncology therapeutics.

A promising immunotherapy approach to activating antitumor immunity with demonstrated efficacy is the blockade of immune checkpoints. Immune checkpoints refer to inhibitory pathways hardwired into the immune system that are crucial for modulating the magnitude and duration of immune responses to minimize collateral tissue damage. Scientists have observed that tumors co-opt certain immune-checkpoint pathways as a major mechanism of immune resistance, particularly against T cells that are specific for tumor antigens and otherwise would attack the tumor. Research has demonstrated that because many of the immune checkpoints are initiated by the interaction between ligands and their specific receptors, these immune checkpoints can be readily blocked by antibodies that neutralize ligands or block receptors. Anti-CTLA-4 antibodies are antibodies to the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 and Yervoy was the first of this class of immunotherapies to achieve approval by the FDA. Programmed cell death protein 1, or PD-1, is another immune checkpoint pathway currently being targeted with immunotherapies. Merck’s anti-PD-1 drug Keytruda (pembrolizumab) was initially approved for use for the treatment of patients with advanced or unresectable melanoma who are no longer responding to first-line therapy. Opdivo is a drug with similar activity marketed by Bristol Myers Squibb. Both Opdivo and Keytruda have received FDA approvals for multiple cancer types including for patients with NSCLC and HNSCC. Less than 20% of patients overall experience benefit in terms of prolonged survival but, in general, not a cure. Other checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-L1 have also received approvals for certain patient populations with specific cancer indication: Genentech’s Tecentriq® (atezolizuma) in urothelial cancer and NSCLC; Bavencio® (avelumab) in Merkel cell and urothelial cancer; and AstraZeneca’s Imfinzi® (durvalumab) in urothelial cancer and as maintenance therapy in unresectable Stage III NSCLC following chemoradiation therapy. Multiple approvals in additional cancer indications have followed and more are in progress.

Currently, there are several hundred clinical trials of anti-PD-1, the receptor, and anti-PD-L1, the matching ligand, many of which may selectively enroll patients with tumors that express the programmed death ligand 1, or PD-L1, due to a greater expected response rate in such patients than those with PD-L1 negative tumors. However, even though PD-L1 positive patients generally respond better than PD-L1 negative patients, the anticipated response rate of PD-L1 positive patients to single agent anti-PD-1/PD-L1 is generally low, at approximately 20%, with the exception of melanoma and bladder cancers, where response rates can be as high as 35% to 40%. Therefore, we believe it is important to identify combination therapies that could result in improved response rates in more tumor types.

Our Approach to a Combination Therapy in Cancer

Preclinical research into pepinemab in animal models has demonstrated that expression of SEMA4D by cancerous cells and by other tumor associated immune cells is common to a wide variety of tumor types, and that SEMA4D expression in tumors can enhance tumor growth, survival and metastatic potential. We are pursuing the development of pepinemab as a therapeutic for cancer because of its potential to neutralize these effects of SEMA4D.

We believe that the combination of pepinemab with immunotherapeutic drugs could prove beneficial. Many immunotherapeutic drugs act by inhibiting negative feedback that limits the magnitude or duration of immune responses, e.g., checkpoint inhibitors such as anti-PD-1, or act by directly inducing greater tumor-specific immune activity, e.g., co-stimulator activities or cancer vaccines. Pepinemab has a different immunotherapeutic mechanism of action in cancer. It promotes infiltration of tumoricidal immune cells into a tumor and a reduction in immunosuppressive cells. As such, we believe pepinemab could enhance the activity of other agents that increase peripheral immune responses. This is the basis for several of our preclinical and clinical collaborations.

In preclinical studies, we determined that pepinemab in combination with a CTLA-4 checkpoint inhibitor can greatly enhance the immune response to tumors by amplifying the benefits of such checkpoint inhibitor. In preclinical tumor models, anti-SEMA4D demonstrated synergy in combination with anti-CTLA-4 for inhibition of tumor growth and increased frequency of complete tumor regression. Based on our preclinical studies, it appears that pepinemab removes the barrier presented by SEMA4D to infiltration into the tumor of immune cells expanded by blockade of CTLA-4. Pepinemab has a profound influence on the traffic of tumor-specific immune cells and, therefore, their ability to eradicate tumors.

Notwithstanding the promise of checkpoint inhibitors, we believe there are still challenges with treatments that are currently approved and in development. The response rate to anti-CTLA-4 is higher in melanoma than in most other tumor types. Combination with pepinemab could increase response rates in cancers that otherwise respond poorly to checkpoint inhibitors as single agents. We have observed in preclinical models that SEMA4D produced in tumors obstructs activation and expansion of tumor-inhibiting immune cells such as MDSC, M2-type macrophage and Treg in the tumor environment.

In addition to the immune-mediated mechanism of action of pepinemab described above, there is an independent mechanism of action relevant to certain tumors that express both the plexin-B1 receptor for SEMA4D and an oncogenic membrane receptor kinase, ErbB-2 or MET. We and others have shown that the crosslinking of membrane associated PLXNB1 receptors by SEMA4D can transactivate the two oncogenic membrane receptor kinases, ErbB-2 and MET. ErbB-2 is also known as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, or HER2, the target of the immunotherapy Herceptin ® (trastuzumab). ErbB-2 and MET membrane receptor kinases are oncogene products, which when transactivated are known to play an important role in the development and progression of certain types of cancers. Both SEMA4D and its PLXNB1 receptor are over-expressed in a wide array of tumor types, such as breast, lung, colorectal, pancreatic, ovarian, head and neck cancer and sarcoma. SEMA4D is also produced by inflammatory cells present in certain tumor microenvironments and has been shown in genetic studies to be a key oncongenic factor in osteosarcoma. As illustrated in Figure 20, we have demonstrated in preclinical animal models that blocking SEMA4D from crosslinking its PLXNB1 receptor by treatment with pepinemab induces regression of a PLXNB1/ErbB-2 double positive tumor even when administered as a single agent.

We believe that this single agent activity may be attributed to pepinemab’s neutralization of SEMA4D to block its interaction with its PLXNB1 receptor and prevent transactivation of ErbB-2 in combination with the immune enhancing effects of pepinemab. We believe pepinemab represents a new potential therapeutic strategy for treatment of HER2+ breast and ovarian cancers either as a single agent or in combination with anti-HER2 antibodies (e.g., trastuzumab).

Figure 20. Treatment of PLXNB1 and ErbB-2 Double Positive Mammary Carcinoma with Anti-SEMA4D Delays Tumor Growth

The single agent efficacy of anti-SEMA4D in a PLXNB1 and ErbB-2 double positive tumor contrasts with the limited single agent efficacy in a colorectal cancer. This may be attributed to the dual effect of anti-SEMA4D in blocking the oncogenic ErbB-2 pathway as well as promoting immune infiltration into the tumor.

Clinical Development of Pepinemab in Cancer

Early Studies and Preclinical Data

We and others have shown in preclinical studies that SEMA4D protein is highly expressed in the majority of the solid tumors evaluated, including gastrointestinal, head and neck, breast, lung, ovarian, skin, pancreatic, urogenital and sarcoma, including osteosarcoma. The results of these studies reveal that the majority of tumors sampled have moderate to high SEMA4D expression levels. Thus, a potential therapy involving SEMA4D molecule signaling may be applicable to many forms of cancer. We also found that the plexin-B1 receptor, the highest affinity receptor for SEMA4D, was broadly expressed in a range of tumor types.

We conducted preclinical studies evaluating pepinemab in conjunction with checkpoint inhibitors similar to the anti-PD-1 antibody nivolumab, and the anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab. These studies generated preclinical data suggesting that the pepinemab antibody can act synergistically with anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 antibodies. Anti-CTLA-4 is believed to be active in draining lymph nodes of the tumor, where it acts to enhance expansion of tumor-specific T cells, as well as in the tumor environment. Expanded T cells from draining lymph nodes must penetrate into the tumor to be effective. Anti-PD-1 is thought to act predominantly to block interaction between PD-1 positive tumor-associated T cells and tumor cells induced to express the PD-L1 ligand. Pepinemab has been shown in preclinical studies to promote infiltration of immune cells into a tumor and, as such, we believe that combining pepinemab with either of these checkpoint inhibitors could enhance their activity to increase immune responses in tumors.

Completed Phase 1 Clinical Trials

In October 2014, we completed a two-center, open-label, multiple-dose, dose-escalation, non-randomized, Phase 1 safety and tolerability clinical trial of intravenous pepinemab in adult patients with advanced solid tumors, such as colorectal, breast, lung, renal and bladder cancers. As illustrated in Figure 21, it was observed that some patients had relatively greater benefit from pepinemab treatment as demonstrated by extended progression-free survival. This was directly correlated to the level of circulating immune cells, a surrogate marker of immune competence. This is consistent with our understanding of the immune-mediated mechanism of action of pepinemab which enhances immune cell traffic and tumor infiltration but does not alone increase the level of circulating immune cells. Our scientific rationale for combining pepinemab with an immunomodulatory therapy is to increase the number of patients who have a sufficiently strong immune response so that they can benefit from the ability of pepinemab to direct these immune cells into the tumor.

Figure 21. Correlation of Immune Cell Number versus Duration of Progression-Free Survival.

In October 2014, we reported final results of our Phase 1 clinical trial of pepinemab in patients with solid tumors. In this clinical trial, 460 doses of pepinemab were administered to 42 patients as weekly intravenous infusions at concentrations ranging from 0.3 to 20 mg/kg. Pepinemab was well tolerated through 20 mg/kg, the highest dose tested. Patients with elevated levels of circulating lymphocytes were observed to have had longer progression-free survival when treated with pepinemab, and one of these patients had a partial response with tumor shrinkage. There were 15 serious adverse events in 12 patients all of which were unrelated to the treatment as determined by independent review. One pancreatic cancer patient developed a dose-limiting toxicity, or DLT, involving elevated liver enzymes concurrent with disease progression (metastasis to liver). The most frequent treatment-related adverse events included grade 1/2 nausea and fatigue.

Pepinemab appeared to be well tolerated in this study, as well as in a separate unrelated Phase 1 clinical trial of single-ascending doses up to 20 mg/kg in 50 patients with multiple sclerosis in which no DLTs were observed. Furthermore, in both short and longer term preclinical animal toxicology studies in monkeys and rodents, the pepinemab was well tolerated at weekly doses up to 200 mg/kg administered over six months.

Completed and Planned Phase 1b/2 Clinical Trials

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

In October 2017, in collaboration with Merck KGaA, based on safety data obtained in a Phase 1 clinical trial with pepinemab administered as a monotherapy in patients with solid tumors, we initiated the CLASSICAL–Lung Phase1b/2 clinical trial in NSCLC of pepinemab in combination with avelumab, a checkpoint inhibitor targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway. The CLASSICAL-Lung trial consists of a dose escalation phase and a subsequent dose expansion phase. The dose escalation phase of the trial consisting of 12 subjects is complete, and we have now completed the dose expansion phase, which includes 18 subjects in one cohort of patients who are immunotherapy naïve and 32 subjects in a second cohort whose tumors have progressed during or following an initial treatment with anti-PD1/PD-L1.

Approximately 59% of the CLASSICAL-Lung trial subjects whose tumors had progressed during or following treatment with FDA-approved checkpoint inhibitors experienced a halt or reversal of tumor progression after treatment with the combination of pepinemab plus avelumab. About half of the subjects who benefited from the combination had been treated with Keytruda and roughly 25% had been treated with Opdivo prior to enrolling in this clinical trial. Two patients had partial responses, or PRs, with approximately 66% and 52% tumor reductions on combination therapy after progression on Keytruda, and 15 patients experienced stable disease, or SD, including three who had been refractory to prior anti-PD1/PD-L1.

Among 21 evaluable immunotherapy naïve patients enrolled, five subjects experienced a partial response following treatment with pepinemab plus avelumab. A total of three subjects have experienced durable clinical benefit for more than one year and an additional three subjects have been on study for at least 26 weeks. The disease control rate (PR plus SD) is approximately 81%.

Comparative analysis of available pre-treatment and on-treatment biopsies in a subset of subjects indicate that there is increased CD8+ T cell influx into tumors following combination therapy in patients experiencing a partial response or stable disease, suggesting a favorable treatment-related change in the tumor microenvironment. Tumor was absent or greatly reduced in on-treatment biopsies from these subjects.

No concerning safety signals with the combination of pepinemab and avelumab have been identified by investigators to date. One dose limiting toxicity, a grade 3 pulmonary embolism, occurred. This resolved and did not recur in that same subject or additional subjects in any cohort, and there have been no dropouts or discontinuations due to toxicity.

Head and Neck Cancer

We believe another mechanism of action of anti-SEMA4D antibody that complements and enhances the effects described above of increased tumor penetration by antigen presenting cells and enhanced infiltration of CD8+ T-cells is reduced accumulation and activity of myeloid derived suppressor cells, or MDSC. This was also demonstrated in a preclinical model of head and neck cancer, the MOC1 carcinoma. In preclinical models, these changes in MDSC accumulation and function resulted in enhanced T-lymphocyte tumor antigen-specific responses in combination with either CTLA-4 or PD-1 targeted immune checkpoint inhibitors. MDSC appear to play a particularly important role in immune evasion in certain cancer indications, notably including HNSCC, by inhibiting the activity of cytotoxic T-cells. We have observed relatively few MDSC in NSCLC in our SIGNAL trial, as compared to results observed in HNSCC biopsies. As a result of these contrasting observations in HNSCC and NSCLC, we have entered into a collaboration with Merck Sharp & Dohme to initiate a combination phase 2 study of pepinemab with pembrolizumab (also known as KEYTRUDA™) in first-line recurrent and metastatic HNSCC. We initiated this study in the second half of 2021. As prespecified in the study protocol, the Company analyzed interim data from the first 36 patients in the study evaluating pepinemab and KEYTRUDA™ in immunotherapy naïve patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The study was based on preclinical and clinical studies demonstrating that antibody blockade of semaphorin 4D (SEMA4D) in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) promotes infiltration of CD8+ cytotoxic T cells and inhibits the recruitment and function of myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSC) in tumors, enabling enhanced ICI efficacy. The study results showed that pepinemab in combination with KEYTRUDA™ resulted in an approximately 2X increase in objective responses (ORR) and median progression free survival (PFS) in patients with hard-to-treat PD-L1-low tumors, those with combined positive score <20 (CPS<20), compared to historical response rates for ICI monotherapy in this population. ORR for the CPS<20 population was 21.1% with median PFS of 5.79 months, which is almost 2X that of historical response to checkpoint monotherapy in this population, ORR 11.9% and PFS 2.2 months. In contrast, patients in the CPS>20 subgroup (n=17) responded similarly to historical ICI monotherapy data. Biopsy data suggest that treatment-induced formation of highly organized lymphoid aggregates, tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS), correlate with disease control. TLS are characterized by a high density of B cells, antigen-presenting dendritic cells and activated T cells including stem-like TCF-1+, PD-1+, CD8+ T cells whose expansion and differentiation has previously been shown to be central for response to checkpoint inhibitors. The safety of pepinemab in combination with KEYTRUDA™ is regularly reviewed by an independent safety committee and has to date been found to be well tolerated.

Our ActivMAb Antibody Discovery Platform

ActivMAb is a proprietary human antibody discovery platform based on a novel method for expressing complex targets such as multi-pass membrane receptors or large and diverse libraries of full-length human monoclonal antibodies on the surface of pox viruses such as vaccinia. The vaccinia virus is a mammalian virus that enables synthesis and selection of fully human monoclonal antibodies in mammalian cells where they undergo the post-translational modifications that distinguish mammalian cells from either bacteria or yeast. We believe our ActivMAb technology offers several advantages over selection platforms that utilize bacterial or yeast expression vectors:

•

efficient selection of antibodies against multi-pass membrane proteins, an important class of pharmaceutical targets against which it has been very difficult to select specific antibodies;

•

rapid generation of high affinity, full-length, human monoclonal antibodies synthesized and naturally modified in mammalian cells; and

•

expression and selection of antibodies that easily and predictably transition to manufacturing in mammalian lines.

By leveraging the advantages of our ActivMAb platform over alternative virus-like particles (VLPs) and bacterial and yeast-based technologies, we believe that this technology can be the basis for building a significant pipeline of therapeutics antibodies against unique targets in multiple disease indications. Our product candidate VX5 was generated by our ActivMAb platform, and is a high-affinity, human IgG1 antibody to CXCL13, a chemokine that induces development of lymphoid tissue. VX5 has initiated IND-directed development for the treatment of MS and potentially for other autoimmune disorders.

ActivMAb also provides an “Antigen Virus” application, a potential tool to improve antibody development for high complexity, hard-to-drug targets, such as G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) and ion channels. This technology, allows the direct incorporation of properly folded, complex multi-pass membrane proteins into specially designed poxviruses. We believe based on our rigorous evaluation that the ActivMAb system can readily generate functional and properly folded complex proteins that can be used for selection of novel, high value, antibody therapeutics.

We currently have active collaborations with three major pharmaceutical and biotech companies, and six strategic relationships with other antibody service providers, and we are exploring additional opportunities to enhance marketing and commercialization of this asset.

Our Approach to Antibody Discovery

Our ActivMAb platform uses a novel method to express fully human monoclonal antibodies on the surface of the vaccinia virus. To date, the most common methods for selecting fully human antibodies have been through immunization of immunoglobulin transgenic mice, which has the disadvantage of tolerance to the many target determinants that are common to both mice and humans (approximately 90%), or through use of in vitro libraries synthesized and expressed in either bacterial or yeast cultures. While library-based methods of antibody selection avoid the problem of tolerance, the selected antibodies are synthesized in an environment that differs from the mammalian cell lines in which they will ultimately be manufactured and their properties in that environment are not predictable. By expressing antibodies on a virus that infects mammalian cells, our antibodies undergo the normal range of modifications characteristic of such cells. We believe that these antibodies can more predictably transition to manufacturing in mammalian cell lines that are commonly used to produce commercial quantities of therapeutic antibodies.

Our ActivMAb platform is designed to insert complementary DNA, or cDNAs, of interest in recombinant vaccinia viruses and to enable high-throughput screening of antibodies with desirable properties that are expressed on the viral surface. The vaccinia virus is an enveloped virus, which means that its protein capsid is protected by a membrane consisting of a lipid bilayer with a very small number of embedded viral proteins. We engineer the virus to efficiently express full-length IgG antibodies on the envelope surface. In effect, the technology enables the equivalent of phage display in mammalian cells. This is intended to have the dual advantage of allowing expression of full-length functional antibodies and reflecting the post-translational modifications of protein expression that distinguish mammalian cells from bacteria and yeast. The platform can aid in de novo antibody selection, optimization of antibody affinity, or conversion of a non-human antibody into a panel of fully human antibodies.

We believe antibodies selected for development through ActivMAb will be efficiently expressed because both discovery and eventual clinical and commercial manufacturing are in similar types of mammalian cells.

Importantly, ActivMAb’s new “Antigen Virus” application is a powerful complement to drug discovery strategies targeting complex protein targets including ion channels and G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) such as chemokine receptors. Specific membrane targets are also key to development of antibody drug conjugates (ADC) for cancer. The ActivMAb system enables expression of functional, properly folded complex proteins on the relatively simple membrane of a mammalian virus. We believe that this is a much more highly purified presentation and efficient selection technology than the complex natural membrane fragments that have been termed virus-like particles.

VX5 for Autoimmune Disease

VX5 is our first product candidate generated from our ActivMAb platform. VX5 is a human antibody to CXCL13, a molecule that regulates the formation of immune tissues that has initiated IND-directed development for the potential treatment of autoimmune disorders.

During a normal immune response, the interaction of CXCL13 and its receptor CXCR5 on B cells and follicular helper T cells directs those cells to primary follicles in lymph nodes and the spleen and induces germinal center formation and lymphoid organogenesis. In a chronically inflamed environment, ectopic lymphoid follicles form within affected tissues. Over-expression of CXCL13 in these tertiary lymphoid organs, accompanied by deregulation of regulatory interactions among immune cells, enables survival of autoreactive B cells and the generation of high affinity antibodies that contribute to development of autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and MS.

In preclinical studies, anti-CXCL13 antibodies such as VX5 have been shown to prevent CXCL13 from interacting with its CXCR5 receptor, resulting in interference with B cell and T helper cell migration into inflamed tissues and ultimately the reduction of inflammatory and autoimmune responses. Therapeutic administration of anti-CXCL13 has been demonstrated to prevent disease progression in mouse models of rheumatoid arthritis and MS.

Discovery Collaborations with Third Parties

General Terms of Master Agreements

We have offered the ActivMAb platform as a discovery tool to third parties since 2014. We currently make ActivMAb available directly and through Science Exchange, Inc., which is an internet-based supplier orchestration platform. We enter into separate master agreements with each client that generally provide for one or more target molecules for antibody selection. The client provides sufficient quantities of antigens or a cDNA sequence for use in each program, and we use our ActivMAb platform to select human monoclonal antibodies against the antigen that substantially comply with the applicable program requirements set forth in the master agreement. Pursuant to each agreement, we may receive a technology access fee and research payments and are eligible to receive a success fee.

Following delivery of a selected antibody, the client is granted a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, limited-purpose license to use the selected antibody for research and testing purposes. Additionally, each client generally has an exclusive option to obtain an exclusive product license to develop and commercialize each selected antibody. If the client enters into a product license with respect to a particular antibody, it may, in the case of a proprietary target or in consideration for certain payments, preclude us, for a certain time period, from undertaking or performing any activities, services or programs to identify or develop any antibodies to the antigen that is the subject of the product license.

Pursuant to these antibody selection agreements, we will own (i) all inventions and know-how discovered, developed, made, conceived or generated in the course of or as a direct result of the activities conducted under a discovery program that relate to the construction of immunoglobulin gene libraries or the process for the selection of monoclonal antibodies from such libraries and (ii) any and all antibodies generated under the discovery programs.

In addition to an upfront technology access fee, we are generally eligible to receive additional research support and performance payments with respect to each discovery program under the master agreement. Also, if the client exercises its option to obtain an exclusive product license to develop and commercialize selected antibodies, we would be eligible to receive milestone payments and low single-digit royalties on future net sales of products commercialized by client.

ActivMAb is a proprietary discovery platform developed by Vaccinex with unique capabilities for multi-pass membrane targets such as G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). The ActivMAb technology has multiple applications including: complex membrane antigen expression and presentation, antibody and antigen discovery, directed evolution and protein optimization. We also have entered into a number of collaborations for using ActivMAb to express complex antigens for antibody discovery in the clients’ labs. These antigen-virus agreements are done under a fee for service arrangements with no milestones or downstream payments to Vaccinex. Vaccinex is paid upon delivery of the agreed upon materials.

Multi-Pass Membrane Protein Research

A novel application of our ActivMAb platform is the ability to efficiently select antibodies against multi-pass membrane proteins. Multi-pass membrane proteins, which constitute the largest and most diverse group of membrane receptors in eukaryotes, are an important class of targets for pharmaceutical products. Many small molecule drugs target multi-pass membrane proteins, but it has been difficult to select antibodies against these targets because natural cellular membranes are a complex environment with many different proteins and specific multi-pass proteins cannot be purified away from the membrane without denaturing. We have invented fusion protein technology to enable the direct incorporation of multi-pass membrane proteins such as G protein-coupled receptors, or GPCRs, and ion channels into the viral membrane. This method is rapid, does not require any detergents or refolding, and can be applied to multiple different cell types in order to maximize protein expression. Specific antigen-expressing virus can be readily purified and used for antibody selection.

In November 2017, we entered into an agreement with Surface Oncology to select antibodies against two target antigens, including an undisclosed human multi-pass membrane protein. We delivered the selected antibodies in the second quarter of 2019 and Surface Oncology exercised its option to exclusively license two antibodies targeting one of the antigens from us for research purposes and purchased its option for an exclusive product license of antibodies targeting the other antigen in the third quarter of 2019. Surface Oncology has sublicensed this exclusive research license agreement to Coherus which is actively continuing phase 1/2 development. In 2019, we successfully completed antibody discovery campaigns with TWIST Bioscience Corporation, or TWIST, pursuant to which we shipped antigen particles to TWIST for use with its antibody libraries, and a protein engineering project with Heptares Therapeutics, Ltd. We delivered antibodies to Catalent Pharma Solutions, or Catalent, as part of our ongoing antibody drug conjugate, or ADC, collaboration described below. More recently, we have entered into collaborations with three major pharmaceutical and biotech companies, and six strategic relationships. We believe this technology addresses an important unmet need and offers multiple opportunities for pipeline expansion and collaboration.

Catalent Pharma Solutions

In October 2017, we entered into an agreement with Catalent to select an antibody to a cancer membrane target suitable for construction of an ADC employing proprietary Catalent technology. Pursuant to the agreement, we will license a Vaccinex-optimized antibody candidate to Catalent for construction of the ADC, testing for efficacy in an animal tumor model, and manufacture for evaluation of tolerability in rodents and cynomolgus monkeys. The ADC will be jointly owned by us and Catalent. We have agreed pursuant to the agreement to discuss in good faith a business relationship to promote and market the ADC.

We believe that other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies may be interested in the opportunity to efficiently select and express specific antibodies required for drug development against novel target antigens. As collaborations with our ActivMAb platform progress, we will seek to increase our economic return and explore opportunities to enter into discovery and co-development arrangements.

Manufacturing

We currently do not own or operate manufacturing facilities. We currently have no plans to build our own clinical or commercial scale manufacturing capabilities. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third-party contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, for the manufacture of our product candidates for clinical trials. Catalent is responsible for the manufacturing of pepinemab for use in clinical trials, and we use other third-party CMOs for other aspects of the manufacturing process. We may elect to pursue other CMOs for manufacturing clinical supplies for later-stage trials and for commercialization. We have no manufacturing needs and do not expect future manufacturing needs related to our ActivMAb Antibody Discovery platform.

Commercialization

We have not established sales, marketing or product distribution operations related to our clinical product candidates. We generally expect to retain some commercial rights in the United States for our clinical product candidates for which we may receive marketing approvals. We also expect to utilize a variety of types of collaboration, distribution and other marketing arrangements with one or more third parties to commercialize pepinemab, upon approval, in other indications and any other products that we develop and obtain approval for in markets outside the United States. We have begun and intend to continue to explore additional opportunities to enhance marketing and commercialization efforts in our ActivMAb Antibody Discovery Platform.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by continuing technological advancement and significant competition. While we believe our product candidates, technology, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face competition from major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions, among others. We believe we are the only company targeting SEMA4D as a potential treatment for neurodegenerative diseases, cancer or autoimmune disorders.

To the extent we are successful in developing pepinemab, we believe we would compete with products that utilize a different mechanism of action, particularly with respect to AD because to date there are no widely available preventative therapeutic treatments for AD. Our strategy of targeting neuroinflammation in the brain with an antibody that blocks inflammatory activation of astrocytes differs from strategies that specifically target amyloid or tau including recent approvals of Aduhelm® or aducanumab in 2021 and Leqembi ® or lecanemab in January 2023, as well as others under development by Eli Lilly, Roche, Biogen, among others. To the extent we are successful in developing pepinemab, we believe we would compete with products that utilize a different mechanism of action in HD because to date there are no marketed preventative therapeutic treatments for HD. Our strategy of targeting neuroinflammation in the brain with an antibody that blocks inflammatory activation of astrocytes differs from genetic strategies that specifically target the Huntington mutation, such as antisense oligonucleotide-based gene therapies under development by Roche and WAVE Life Sciences, among others, and adeno-associated virus-based gene therapies under development by uniQure and Voyager Therapeutics, among others. We believe that pepinemab has potentially broader applicability to other neurodegenerative diseases, such as HD and Progressive MS, than these other approaches. Given that pepinemab has been well-tolerated in clinical trials to date and has not evidenced concerning toxicity as a single agent, there may also be opportunities for combination therapy with agents based on a different mechanism of action.

In cancer, Yervoy, which targets the CTLA-4 protein, was the first immunomodulating monoclonal antibody to receive FDA approval. The FDA has also approved Keytruda and Opdivo for immunotherapy of melanoma and NSCLC, as well as other selected cancer indications. Other antibodies targeting PD-1 or PDL-1, including Tecentriq, Bavencio and Imfinzi, are also in clinical development and have received FDA approval for some cancer indications. These monoclonal antibodies may have been initially tested for specific selected indications, but their broad effects on the immune system as a whole make them potentially relevant across a wide range of solid tumors. We believe the differentiated mechanisms of action of pepinemab provide an opportunity to pursue combination therapy with one or more of these competing technologies. Given the known toxicity of immunotherapy, we believe the evidence from three clinical studies to date that pepinemab is well tolerated as a single agent makes it a potentially attractive candidate for combination therapy.

Any product candidates we successfully develop and commercialize may compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. Key product features that would affect our ability to effectively compete with other therapeutics include the efficacy, safety and convenience of our products. Similarly, our ActivMAb antibody discovery platform technology will also compete with marketed or future discovery platforms or alternative technologies on the basis of effectiveness, convenience and cost, among other factors. The level of generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors will also significantly affect the pricing and competitiveness of our products. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we enter the market. They may also obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates or platform technologies.

Many of the companies against which we may compete have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These companies also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Intellectual Property

Our intellectual property is critical to our business, and we strive to protect our technology, including by obtaining and maintaining patent protection in the United States and certain other countries for our platform technologies, product candidates, novel biological discoveries, and other inventions that are important to our business. We pursue broad patent protection for our platform technologies and for our product candidates. We initially pursue patent protection for compositions of matter, methods of use including various treatment indications, and methods of making. Throughout the innovation process, we seek to identify additional means of obtaining patent protection that would potentially enhance our commercial success, including obtaining patent protection for additional methods of use such as additional medical indications for our product candidates, and refinements and improvements of our platform technologies. We also rely on trade secrets relating to our discovery platform technology and product candidates and seek to protect and maintain the confidentiality of proprietary information to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection.

Our success may also depend on our ability to obtain rights to intellectual property held by third parties that may be necessary or useful to our business. We generally obtain rights to third-party intellectual property through exclusive or non-exclusive licenses. If we are not able to obtain rights to intellectual property held by third parties that are necessary or useful to our business, our business could be harmed, possibly materially harmed.

The patent positions of biotechnology companies like ours, however, are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific and factual questions. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Consequently, we may not obtain or maintain adequate patent protection for any of our product candidates or platform technologies. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction, or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient protection from competitors. Any patents that we hold may be challenged, circumvented or invalidated by third parties. In such an event, it would have a material and adverse effect on our business and financial condition. For a more comprehensive discussion of the risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk Factors–Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

The patent portfolios for our platform technologies and our three most advanced product candidates are summarized below:

SEMA4D Antibody Platform and Pepinemab

Our intellectual property portfolio for our SEMA4D antibody platform and pepinemab includes several issued United States and foreign patents as well as pending U.S. and foreign patent applications encompassing compositions of matter for pepinemab, methods of use and methods of making. We wholly own rights to several families of patents and patent applications related to the SEMA4D antibody platform and pepinemab that will expire or are projected to expire between 2030 and 2038. The “Smith II” patent family discloses and claims a group of antibodies and encoding polynucleotides that includes the pepinemab antibody, as well as methods of making and using the antibodies. This family has a projected expiration date of May 2030. The Smith II family includes granted patents in the United States (four patents), Australia, Canada, China (two patents), Eurasia (two patents validated in Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan), Europe (validated in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Spain, France, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland), Israel (two patents), India, Japan (two patents), South Korea, Mexico (two patents), New Zealand (two patents), Singapore, and South Africa, Vietnam and pending in Thailand,.

We also wholly own ten additional pepinemab-related patent families. These are directed to: (i) methods of modifying blood brain barrier permeability and treating neuroinflammatory disorders (projected expiration of October 2032; granted in Australia, Canada, Eurasia (validated in Russia), Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Europe (validated in Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and Sweden), Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore and the United States, and pending in China, and Thailand); (ii) methods of treating cancer and inhibiting angiogenesis using a combination of an anti-SEMA4D antibody and a VEGF inhibitor (projected expiration of December 2032; granted in the United States and Canada); (iii) compositions comprising the pepinemab epitope on SEMA4D and related products such as a nucleic acid encoding the epitope, and methods of producing the polypeptide epitope (projected expiration of March 2033; granted in the United States, New Zealand, and South Africa); (iv) methods of promoting neurogenesis and treating stroke (projected expiration of May 2033; granted in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Eurasia (validated in Russia), Europe (validated in Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Spain, France, United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg. Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and Sweden) Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, and the United States, and pending in Thailand); (v) methods of treating cancer using a combination of a SEMA4D antagonist and an immune modulator (projected expiration of June 2034; granted in the United States (two patents) , Australia, Brazil, Canada, Eurasia, Europe, Israel, Japan (two patents), Mexico, New Zealand (two patents), South Korea and Singapore, and pending in the United States, Canada, China, Europe, South Africa, Singapore, and Thailand); (vi) methods of inhibiting the growth of atherosclerotic plaques, inhibiting neovascularization and treating atherosclerosis (projected expiration of October 2034; granted in the United States, Australia, Europe, Eurasia, Israel, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Singapore, South Africa, and New Zealand, and pending in Brazil, Canada, Thailand); (vii) methods of treating neurodegenerative disorders such as HD (projected expiration of October 2034; granted in the United States (three patents), Australia, (two patents) Eurasia (validated in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan), Europe (validated in Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, the United Kingdom, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Sweden), Israel, Japan (two patents), Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, and New Zealand, and pending in the United States, New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Eurasia, Europe, Israel, South Korea, Mexico, Singapore, and Thailand); (viii) methods for early detection of glial cell activation in subjects having, suspected of having, or at risk of developing a neurodegenerative or neuroinflammatory disease such as HD, and determining whether such subjects would benefit from treatment a SEMA4D antagonist (projected expiration of February 2038; pending in the United States, Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russian Federation, Singapore, and South Africa); (ix) methods of treating cancer using a combination of a SEMA4D antagonist and an epigenetic modulator (projected expiration of March 2038;

pending in the United States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russian Federation, Singapore, and South Africa); and (x) a fully-human anti-SEMA4D antibody VX18 (projected expiration May 2038; pending in the United States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Israel, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russian Federation, Singapore, and South Africa).

In addition, the portfolio includes three patent families including a U.S. and corresponding foreign applications, one of which is wholly owned by Vaccinex, one of which is co-owned by Vaccinex and H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Inc., or Moffitt, and another which is co-owned by Vaccinex and Merck KGaA. Each application has an anticipated expiration date in 2040. The US and foreign applications that are wholly owned by Vaccinex include claims directed to methods for inhibiting, delaying, or reducing tumor growth in a subject with cancer by administering a combination a SEMA4D antagonist and an antibody that inhibits TGFbeta. Foreign applications are pending in Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, and New Zealand. The Vaccinex-Merck co-owned US and foreign applications include claims directed to methods for treating, inhibiting, delaying, or reducing malignant cell growth in a subject with cancer whose level of circulating myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) is below a predetermined level. Foreign applications are pending in Australia, Canada, China Europe, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, and New Zealand. The US and foreign applications co-owned by Vaccinex and Moffitt include claims directed to anti-cancer combination therapy comprising at least one dendritic cell pulsed with an oncodriver and an immunoregulatory molecule inhibitor selected from antagonists of SEMA4D and VEGF, and methods of treating cancer with the combination therapy. Foreign applications are pending in Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan and New Zealand.

The portfolio also includes two patent families, one of which is co-owned by Vaccinex and Imperial College London, and another which is co-owned by Vaccinex, University of Sydney, and Sydney Children’s Hospital. Each application has an anticipated expiration date in 2041. The Vaccinex/Imperial College London co-owned applications are pending in the United States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Israel, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore and South Africa and includes claims directed to treatment of peripheral nerve injury using a SEMA4D antagonist. The Vaccinex/University of Sydney/Sydney Children’s Hospital co-owned application discloses and claims treatment of Rett Syndrome using a SEMA4D antagonist antibody and are pending in the United States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, India, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore and South Africa.

In addition, the portfolio also includes two U.S. and corresponding PCT applications, one of which is wholly owned by Vaccinex and one of which is co-owned by Vaccinex and the University of Central Florida or UCF. The anticipated expiration date of the Vaccinex wholly owned applications is in 2042; the expiration date of the co-owned applications is in 2043. The US and PCT applications that are wholly owned by Vaccinex disclose and include claims directed to methods for predicting the response to treatment of a subject with a neurodegenerative disorder with an anti-SEMA4D antibody based on the subject’s cognitive and/or functional impairment assessment scores. The Vaccinex/UCF co-owned applications disclose and claim a combination therapy for the treatment of Huntington’s disease which comprises antagonist of SEMA4D and a HTT-lowering agent.

In addition to the patents and applications wholly owned and co-owned by us, our SEMA4D antibody platform patent portfolio also includes patents and applications exclusively licensed from the Tokyo Medical and Dental University of Japan.

We have exclusively licensed a family of applications directed to compositions and methods for treating osteoporosis and other bone-related diseases from the Tokyo Medical and Dental University of Japan. This family is granted in Australia, Canada, China, Europe (validated in Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Finland, France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Spain, and Portugal), Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and the United States, and is pending in Brazil. The application family has a projected expiration date of May 2032.

ActivMAb Antibody Discovery Platform

Our ActivMAb platform is encompassed by two patent families and a provisional patent application wholly owned by us, as well as granted U.S. and foreign patents in families that are exclusively licensed to us by the University of Rochester. These patent families broadly encompass the process and methods of use of the ActivMAb platform.

University of Rochester License Agreement. In connection with the formation of our company in 2001, a 1998 license agreement with the University of Rochester, or the Rochester Agreement, was assigned to us. Under the Rochester Agreement, the University of Rochester granted an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license to commercialize patents used in the discovery of antibodies. These patents are relevant to our ActivMAb antibody discovery platform. Under the Rochester Agreement, we are obligated to pay the University of Rochester low single-digit royalties on sales of products covered by the patents licensed to us under the Rochester Agreement as well as an annual license maintenance fee creditable in part against the royalties. In addition, with respect to the first product covered by the patents licensed to us under the Rochester Agreement, we are obligated to pay the University of Rochester milestone payments in de minimis amounts upon (i) the submission of the first IND application, (ii) the approval of the first

IND application and (iii) the filing of the first 510(k) filing for a diagnostic. However, because the Rochester Agreement relates to our ActivMAb antibody discovery platform, while we intend to use these patents in our business, we do not intend to directly sell products covered by the patents licensed to us under the Rochester Agreement. The term of the University of Rochester license runs until the end of the enforceable term of any patents issued. The Rochester Agreement may also be terminated upon material breach or terminated by us upon 90 days’ prior written notice to the University of Rochester.

ActivMAb Platform Patents. Three patent families and a pending provisional application covering the ActivMAb platform are wholly owned by us. The first family discloses and claims aspects of the technology as currently practiced that are improved over the in-licensed patent family discussed below. Granted claims in this family include product claims directed to fusion proteins, recombinant libraries, host cells and kits, as well as claims directed to methods of constructing libraries and methods of selecting antibodies possessing a desired specificity. This family has a projected expiration date of March 2033 in the United States and April 2033 in all other jurisdictions. This application family is granted in the United States (two patents), Australia, China, Europe (validated in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom), Eurasia (validated in Russia), Israel, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and New Zealand. The second family discloses and claims compositions and methods for displaying multi-pass membrane proteins in native conformation on vaccinia virus extracellular virions to enable selection of antibodies binding to these proteins in our ActivMAb platform. This family has a projected expiration date of April 2037 and is granted in the United States (three patents), Europe (validated in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, UK, and Sweden), China, Mexico, and Russia and includes pending applications in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Africa. The third family discloses and claims methods for increasing the number of independent poxvirus genomes in our antibody libraries. This application has a projected expiration date of July 2037, and is granted in the United States, Japan, Russia, Singapore, and South Korea, and includes pending applications in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, and South Africa.

In addition, there is a provisional application which is wholly owned by Vaccinex, and which discloses and claims compositions and methods for displaying multi-pass membrane proteins in native conformation on poxvirus extracellular virions to enable selection of antibodies binding to these proteins in our ActivMAb platform. Upon conversion of the provisional application to conventional U.S. and/or international applications under the PCT in 2021, the application has an anticipated expiration date in 2041.

A patent family licensed from the University of Rochester is directed to methods of producing and identifying immunoglobulin molecules in eukaryotic cells, as well as kits for the selection of antigen-specific recombinant immunoglobulins. This family has a projected expiration date of March 2025 in the United States. Patents are granted in this family in Australia (two patents), Canada, China, Europe (validated in Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Germany), Japan and the United States.

VX5

Our patent portfolio covering VX5 includes a family exclusively licensed from the University of Rochester that contains two U.S. patents and one Canadian patent with projected expiration dates in April 2025 in Canada and October 2025 and November 2026 in the United States. This family includes claims directed to methods of treating MS and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as methods of inhibiting inflammation or reducing ongoing inflammation using anti-CXCL13 antibodies.

The portfolio further includes three VX5-related patent families wholly owned by us. The first, directed to the VX5 composition and related methods, has a projected expiration date of September 2031. This family is granted in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe (validated in Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Finland, France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden), India, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and the United States (two patents), and is pending in the United States. The application includes claims directed to antibodies, nucleic acids, vectors, cells and polypeptides, as well as methods for neutralizing CXCL13, and methods of treating autoimmune diseases or inflammatory diseases. The second family, directed to methods of treatment of B cell-mediated inflammatory diseases, e.g., Sjogren’s syndrome, has a projected expiration date of March 2033. This family is granted in the United States, Australia, Canada, China, Europe (validated in German, France, and the United Kingdom), Japan, Korea, and New Zealand. The third family, directed to methods for increasing mucosal IgA levels, has a projected expiration date of January 2034. It is granted in the United States, Canada, China, Japan, Australia, Europe (validated in Germany, France and the United Kingdom), Japan, New Zealand and South Korea. A fourth VX5 patent family was filed in 2021 and is jointly owned by Vaccinex and Imperial College Innovations Limited. This patent family describes and claims use of CXCL13 blocking antibody to promote peripheral nerve regeneration. Any patents that issue in this patent family have a projected expiration date of June 2042. This family includes a granted U.S. patent and pending applications in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Israel, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, and South Africa.

Patent Protection

The term of individual patents depends on the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In countries in which we file, the patent term is at least 20 years from the filing date of a non-provisional patent application, assuming all maintenance fees and annuities are paid. The patent term in the United States may be extended beyond the 20-year term based on U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, delay. In various jurisdictions, the patent exclusivity covering a specific product can be extended in certain circumstances to account for delays in regulatory approval.

For example, in the United States the term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved product or a method of using or manufacturing the product may also be eligible for extension, which provides patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. Patent term extension, which can be applied to only a single patent and is effective only with regard to the approved product, can be available when the approval is the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the active ingredient. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under development and then regulatory review and cannot extend the term of a patent more than 14 years from the date of product approval. Similar supplemental protection provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our products receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those products, where applicable. We plan to seek patent term extensions to any of our issued patents in any jurisdiction where these are available; however, there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the USPTO and the FDA in the United States, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and if granted, the length of such extensions.

Trade Secret Protection

We also rely on trade secret protection for our confidential and proprietary information. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information and trade secrets, including through contractual means with our employees and consultants, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques, or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets, or disclose our technology. Thus, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets. It is our policy to require our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual during the course of the individual’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. Our agreements with employees also provide that all inventions conceived by the employee in the course of employment with us or from the employee’s use of our confidential information are our exclusive property.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

United States Government Regulation

In the United States, the FDA regulates our current product candidates as biological products, or biologics, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Public Health Service Act, and related regulations. Biologics are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The FDA and comparable regulatory agencies in state and local jurisdictions impose substantial requirements upon, among other things, the testing, development, manufacture, quality control, safety, purity, potency, labeling, storage, distribution, record keeping and reporting, approval, import and export, advertising and promotion, and postmarket surveillance of biologics. Although our product candidates are subject to these requirements, the ActivMAb platform we utilize to develop our product candidates is not subject to FDA regulation.

The FDA’s policies may change, and additional laws and regulations may be enacted that could prevent or delay further development or regulatory approval of any product candidates, product or manufacturing changes, additional disease indications, or label changes. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that might arise from future legislative or administrative action.

Failure to comply with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject a sponsor to administrative or judicial enforcement actions. These actions could include the suspension or termination of clinical trials by the FDA, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications or supplemental applications, withdrawal of an approval, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, import detention, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution. Any such administrative or judicial action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Although this discussion focuses on regulation in the United States, we anticipate seeking approval for and marketing of our product candidates in other countries, either independently or with collaborators. Generally, our product candidates will be subject to regulation in other countries that is similar in nature and scope as those imposed in the United States, although there can be important differences. In Europe, for example, some significant aspects of regulation are addressed in a centralized way through the European Medicines Agency, but country-specific regulation remains essential in many respects.

Biologics Development Process

Before a biologic may be marketed or sold in the United States, a sponsor generally must conduct nonclinical laboratory and animal tests; submit an IND application, which must become effective before clinical trials may begin; conduct adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety, purity and potency of the proposed biologic for its intended use or uses; undergo pre-approval inspection of manufacturing facilities and sometimes clinical trial sites; and obtain FDA approval of a Biologics License Application, or BLA. The testing and approval process require substantial time and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.

Preclinical Testing. Before testing any compound in human subjects, a sponsor must develop extensive preclinical data. Preclinical testing generally includes laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and formulation, as well as toxicological and pharmacological studies in several animal species to assess the quality and safety of the product. Certain animal studies must be performed in compliance with the FDA’s Good Laboratory Practice regulations, or GLP, and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Act and related regulations.

IND Application. Prior to commencing the first clinical trial in humans in the United States, an IND must be submitted to the FDA, and the IND must become effective. A sponsor must submit information, including preclinical testing results, to the FDA as part of the IND and the FDA must evaluate whether there is an adequate basis for testing the drug in humans. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA unless the FDA within the 30-day time period raises concerns or questions about the submitted data or the conduct of the proposed clinical trial and places the IND on clinical hold. In such case, the IND sponsor must resolve any outstanding concerns with the FDA before the clinical trial may begin. A separate submission to the IND must be made for each successive clinical trial to be conducted during product development. Further, an independent Institutional Review Board, or IRB, for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the protocol and informed consent form for any clinical trial before it commences at that site. Informed consent must also be obtained from each study subject. Regulatory authorities, an IRB, a data safety monitoring board or the trial sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the study subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.

Clinical Trials. For purposes of developing product candidates for BLA approval, human clinical trials are typically conducted in phases that may overlap:

•

Phase 1 – The investigational biologic is initially given to a small group of healthy human subjects or patients and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, reactivity, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion. These trials may also yield early evidence of effectiveness. During Phase 1 clinical trials, sufficient information about the safety of the investigational new drug must be obtained to permit the design of well-controlled and scientifically valid Phase 2 clinical trials.

•

Phase 2 – Studies are conducted in a limited number of patients to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to initially assess the efficacy of the investigational product for the particular indication or indications sought within the target disease or condition and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted by the sponsor to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more expensive Phase 3 clinical trials.

•

Phase 3 – When Phase 2 evaluations show that an investigational product may have a promising benefit-risk profile, Phase 3 clinical trials are undertaken at multiple clinical trial sites to establish statistically significant evidence of the safety, purity, and potency of the investigational biologic for the proposed use and the proposed dosing regimen, and to provide an adequate basis for product labeling and ultimately, for review and potential approval by the FDA.

All clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice requirements, or GCPs, which establish standards for conducting, recording data from, and reporting the results of, clinical trials. GCPs are intended to assure that the data and reported results are credible and accurate, and that the rights, safety, and well-being of study participants are protected. A study sponsor is also required to submit to the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, for public posting on NIH’s clinical trial website, www.clinicaltrials.gov, certain details about applicable clinical trials and clinical trial results.

Our planned clinical trials for our product candidates may not begin or be completed on schedule, if at all. Clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays in:

•

obtaining regulatory authorization to commence a study;

•

reaching agreement with clinical trial sites and their subsequent performance in conducting accurate and reliable studies on a timely basis;

•

obtaining IRB approval to conduct a study at a prospective site;

•

recruiting patients to participate in a study; and

•

supply of the investigational product and related materials.

Success in early-stage clinical trials does not ensure success in later stage clinical trials. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and may be susceptible to varying interpretations, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval.

The BLA Process

BLA Submission and Review. In order to obtain approval to market a biologic in the United States, a BLA must be submitted to the FDA that provides data establishing to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety, purity and potency of the investigational product for the proposed indication(s). Each BLA submission requires a substantial user fee payment unless a waiver or exemption applies. The application includes all relevant data available from pertinent nonclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls and proposed packaging and labeling, among other things. Data may come from company-sponsored studies as well as from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators and literature.

The FDA will initially review the BLA for completeness before accepting it for filing. Under the FDA’s procedures, the agency has 60 days from its receipt of a BLA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that the application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. If it determines that the application does not meet this initial standard, the FDA may refuse to file the application and request additional information, in which case the application must be resubmitted with the requested information, and review of the application is delayed. After the BLA is accepted for filing, the FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe, pure and potent, which includes determining whether it is effective for its intended use, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP, to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality, potency and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel products or products that 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, if so, under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions and usually has followed such recommendations.

During the approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, is necessary to assure the benefits of the biologic outweigh its risks. A REMS may include various elements depending on what the FDA considers necessary for the safe use of the biologic, ranging from a medication guide or patient package insert to limitations on who may prescribe or dispense the biologic. If the FDA concludes that a REMS is needed, the BLA sponsor must submit a proposed REMS and the FDA will not approve the BLA without a REMS that the agency has determined is acceptable.

Certain applications for approval must include an assessment, generally based on clinical trial data, of the safety and effectiveness of the biological product in relevant pediatric populations. Under certain circumstances, the FDA may waive or defer the requirement for a pediatric assessment, either at the sponsor’s request or by the agency’s initiative.

FDA performance goals generally provide for action on a BLA within 10 months of filing, which (as discussed above) typically occurs within 60 days of submission, but that action date can be and frequently is extended in certain circumstances. For example, the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. A sponsor may apply to restore a portion of patent term lost during product development and FDA review of a BLA if approval of the application is the first permitted commercial marketing or use of a biologic containing the active ingredient. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of the IND and the date of submission of the BLA, plus the time between the date of submission of the BLA and the date of FDA approval of the product. The maximum period of restoration is five years, and the patent cannot be extended to more than 14 years from the date of FDA approval of the product. Only one patent claiming each approved product is eligible for restoration and the patent holder must apply for restoration within 60 days of approval. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for patent term restoration.

For investigational products that are intended to treat serious diseases, certain mechanisms may expedite the development and FDA approval process. For example, the FDA may grant Priority Review designation to a product that could provide significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of a serious condition. Another FDA Program is Fast Track designation, which a sponsor can request at any time during the development process to facilitate development and expedite review of a product intended to treat a serious condition and fill an unmet medical need. Fast Track designation involves early and frequent communication between the FDA and the sponsor (e.g., about clinical trial design), and also allows rolling review, under which a sponsor may submit sections of its BLA for FDA review on an ongoing basis, rather than waiting to submit the BLA when the entire application is complete, each of which may lead to earlier BLA submission and approval. Breakthrough Therapy designation is another program that is intended to expedite development and review of a product that is intended to treat a serious condition and where preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over available therapy on a clinically significant endpoint. Breakthrough Therapy designation provides all of the features of Fast Track designation, as well as the opportunity to obtain early and intensive guidance from the FDA for an efficient drug development program and a commitment to involve senior agency personnel in providing this guidance. Priority Review, Fast Track and Breakthrough Therapy designations do not change the standards for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval, however, and the agency may determine that an investigational product does not meet the criteria for such designation. Moreover, even if the agency grants designation under one or more of these programs, the agency may subsequently revoke the designation if the agency determines the criteria are no longer met. A fourth program is Accelerated Approval, which is available for a drug intended to treat a serious condition that fills an unmet need. FDA may grant accelerated approval based on such drug’s effect on a surrogate endpoint or an intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, subject to the requirement that the sponsor conduct postmarketing confirmatory trials to verify the clinical benefit.

If the FDA determines that a BLA does not meet the regulatory standard for approval, it will issue a Complete Response letter to communicate that the agency will not approve the BLA in its current form and to inform the sponsor of changes the sponsor must make or additional clinical, nonclinical or manufacturing data the sponsor must provide before the FDA can approve the application, with no implication regarding the ultimate approvability of the application. If a Complete Response letter is issued, the sponsor may resubmit the BLA, addressing the deficiencies identified in the letter or withdraw the application. Even if the sponsor resubmits the BLA, there is no assurance of approval, and the FDA may determine that the resubmitted BLA still does not meet the regulatory standards for approval.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless the agency determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP and are adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. If it determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, the FDA typically will outline the deficiencies and often will request additional testing or information. This may significantly delay further review of the application. If the FDA finds that a clinical site did not conduct the clinical trial in accordance with GCP, the FDA may determine that the data generated by the clinical site should be excluded from analyses provided in the BLA. Additionally, notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

The testing and approval process for a biologic requires substantial time, effort and financial resources and this process may take several years to complete. The FDA may not grant approval on a timely basis, or at all. We may encounter difficulties or unanticipated costs in our efforts to secure necessary governmental approvals, which could delay or preclude us from marketing our products.

Even if a product candidate receives regulatory approval, the approval may be limited to specific disease states, patient populations and dosages, or might contain significant limitations on use in the form of warnings, precautions or contraindications, or in the form of a REMS, restrictions on distribution, or postmarketing study requirements. Further, even after regulatory approval is obtained, later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product may result in restrictions on the product or even complete withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, we cannot predict what adverse regulations may arise from future governmental action.

Postmarketing Commitments. The FDA may require, or companies may pursue, additional clinical trials after a product is approved. These so-called Phase 4 clinical trials may be a condition to be satisfied for continuing drug approval. The results of Phase 4 clinical trials can, among other things, be intended to confirm the effectiveness of a product candidate that received Accelerated Approval, or to provide important safety information. In addition, the FDA has express statutory authority to require sponsors to conduct postmarket studies to specifically address safety issues identified by the agency.

Orphan Drug Exclusivity. The Orphan Drug Act provides incentives for the development of drugs and biological products intended to treat rare diseases or conditions, which generally are diseases or conditions affecting fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States. If a sponsor submits a request for designation containing information showing, among other things, that a drug or biologic is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to the product for that use. The benefits of orphan drug designation include research and development tax credits and exemption from the application user fees. A drug or biologic that is approved for the orphan designated indication generally is granted seven years of orphan drug exclusivity. During that period, the FDA generally may not approve any other application for the same product (for biologics, that means a product with the same principal molecular structural features) for the same use, although there are exceptions, most notably when the later product is shown to be clinically superior to the product with exclusivity.

Post-Approval Requirements

If and when approved, any product candidates manufactured or distributed by us or on our behalf will be subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including requirements for record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, submitting annual reports, and reporting biological product deviations. Also, post-approval modifications to a licensed biologic, such as changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, may require a sponsor to develop additional data or conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, to be submitted in a new or supplemental BLA, which would require FDA review and approval prior to making the modification.

Good Manufacturing Practice. Manufacturers are required to register their facilities with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP, which relate to among other things 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, quality control and quality assurance procedures, and records and reports. We cannot be certain that we or our present or future third-party manufacturers and suppliers will be able to comply with all cGMP and other applicable regulatory requirements. If we or our present or future suppliers are not able to comply with these requirements, the FDA may, among other things, halt our clinical trials, refuse to approve a BLA or other application, force us to recall a drug from distribution, shut down manufacturing operations or withdraw approval of a BLA. Noncompliance with cGMP or other applicable FDA requirements can also result in other sanctions, including issuance of warning letters, fines, civil and criminal penalties, seizures, operating restrictions, and injunctive action.

Advertising and Promotion. The FDA and other federal and state agencies regulate the labeling, marketing, advertising and promotion of biologics. A biologic cannot be commercially promoted before it is approved. After approval, promotion of a biologic must be consistent with the labeling approved by the FDA. Although doctors may prescribe a product approved by the FDA for any use based on their professional judgment, a company may not promote its approved product for uses not approved by the FDA. Under certain conditions, however, a company may engage in non-promotional, balanced communication regarding an unapproved use. Any claims that a company makes in advertising or promotion about a product’s approved uses must be adequately substantiated and effectiveness claims must be appropriately balanced with safety information. Failure to comply with these and other requirements may result in, among other consequences, untitled or warning letters, corrective advertising requirements, injunctions, potential civil and criminal penalties, criminal prosecution, and agreements with governmental agencies that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes its products. Government regulators other than FDA, including the Department of Justice and the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities, have scrutinized the promotion and marketing of drugs and biologics.

Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, amended the Public Health Service Act to create a new licensure framework for biosimilar products. The BPCIA sets criteria for determining that a product is biosimilar to an already-licensed biologic, or reference product, and establishes a process by which an abbreviated BLA for a biosimilar product is submitted, reviewed and approved. In certain circumstances, the BPCIA provides periods of exclusivity that protect a reference product from biosimilar competition. If applicable, the exclusivities prevent the FDA from accepting a biosimilar application for review until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product, and from approving the biosimilar until 12 years after the reference product’s approval. Additionally, the BPCIA establishes procedures by which the biosimilar applicant provides information about its application and product to the reference product sponsor, and by which information about potentially relevant patents is shared and litigation over patents may proceed in advance of approval. The BPCIA also provides a period of exclusivity for the first biosimilar to be determined by the FDA to be interchangeable with the reference product.

In addition, the BPCIA incorporates by reference many provisions of section 505A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, such that if a sponsor conducts pediatric studies for a biologic that fairly respond to a written request from FDA, the 12-year exclusivity period will be deemed to be 12 1 ⁄ 2 years, and the 4-year period will be deemed to be 4 1 ⁄ 2 years.

The contours of the BPCIA are still being defined by the FDA through a variety of means, including issuance of regulations, guidance documents and decisions the agency has made in the course of considering and approving specific biosimilar applications. The FDA’s interpretation of the BPCIA, as well as court decisions in lawsuits regarding provisions of the BPCIA, may significantly affect the impact of the statute on both reference product and biosimilar sponsors. For example, the Supreme Court has held that, notwithstanding language in the statute that a biosimilar applicant “shall provide” certain information to the reference product sponsor, the information exchange is not mandatory.

Coverage and Reimbursement

In both domestic and foreign markets, sales of any product candidates for which we may receive regulatory approval will depend in part upon the availability of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. Such third-party payors include governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers and managed care organizations and other entities. Coverage decisions may depend upon clinical and economic standards that disfavor new drug products when more established or lower cost therapeutic alternatives are already available or subsequently become available. Assuming coverage is granted, the reimbursement rates paid for covered products might not be adequate for us to sell on a profitable basis. Even if favorable coverage status and adequate reimbursement rates are attained, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. The marketability of any products for which we may receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if governmental healthcare programs and other third-party payors fail to provide coverage and adequate reimbursement to allow us to sell such products on a competitive and profitable basis. For example, under these circumstances, physicians may limit how much or under what circumstances they will prescribe or administer, and patients may decline to purchase, such products. This, in turn, could affect our ability to successfully commercialize our products and impact our profitability, results of operations, financial condition, and future success.

If we successfully commercialize any of our products, we may participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Participation is required for federal funds to be available for our covered outpatient drugs under Medicaid and, if applicable, Medicare Part B. Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, we would be required to pay a rebate to each state Medicaid program for our covered outpatient drugs that are dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by a state Medicaid program as a condition of having federal funds being made available to the states for our drugs under Medicaid and, if applicable, Part B of the Medicare program.

Federal law requires that any company that participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program also participate in the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing program in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. The 340B drug pricing program requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge statutorily defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. These 340B covered entities include a variety of community health clinics and other entities that receive health services grants from the Public Health Service, as well as hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients.

In addition, in order to be eligible to have its products paid for with federal funds under the Medicaid and Medicare Part B programs and purchased by certain federal agencies and grantees, a manufacturer also must participate in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, or VA, Federal Supply Schedule, or FSS, pricing program. Under this program, the manufacturer is obligated to make its innovator and single source products available for procurement on an FSS contract and charge a price to four federal agencies, the VA, the U.S. Department of Defense, or DoD, the Public Health Service and the U.S. Coast Guard, that is no higher than the statutory Federal Ceiling Price. Moreover, pursuant to regulations issued by the DoD Defense Health Agency to implement Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, manufacturers are required to provide rebates on utilization of their innovator and single source products that are dispensed to TRICARE beneficiaries by TRICARE network retail pharmacies. The requirements under the 340B, FSS, and TRICARE programs could reduce the revenue we may generate from any products that are commercialized in the future and could adversely affect our business and operating results.

The market for any product candidates for which we may receive regulatory approval will depend significantly on the degree to which these products are listed on third-party payors’ drug formularies or lists of medications for which third-party payors provide coverage and reimbursement. The industry competition to be included on such formularies often leads to downward pricing pressures on pharmaceutical companies. Also, third-party payors may refuse to include a particular branded drug on their formularies or otherwise restrict patient access to a branded drug when a less costly generic equivalent or another alternative is available. In addition, because each third-party payor individually approves coverage and reimbursement levels, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement is a time-consuming and costly process. We may be required to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of any product to each third-party payor separately with no assurance that approval will be obtained, and we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of our products. We cannot be certain that our product candidates will be considered cost-effective by third-party payors. This process could delay the market acceptance of any product candidates for which we may receive approval and could have a negative effect on our future revenues and operating results.

Federal and State Fraud and Abuse and Data Privacy and Security Laws and Regulations

In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, federal and state fraud and abuse laws restrict business practices in the pharmaceutical industry, and our marketing, sales, and distribution of any products for which we obtain marketing approval will be subject to scrutiny and enforcement under one or more federal or state health care fraud and abuse laws and regulations. These include the following fraud and abuse laws.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce or in return for the referral of an individual for or purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease or order of any item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exemption or safe harbor. Moreover, there are no safe harbors for many common practices in the industry, including patient and product support programs, educational and research grants, and charitable donations. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the statute has been violated. Liability under the Anti-Kickback Statute may be established without proving actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act.

The federal civil False Claims Act imposes liability for, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment of government funds or knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, or for knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay or transmit money to the government. Actions under the False Claims Act can be brought by the federal government or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government, who may share in any judgments or settlements. Many pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been investigated and have reached substantial financial settlements with the federal government under the civil False Claims Act for a variety of alleged improper marketing activities, including allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product or causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies’ marketing of products for unapproved, and thus non-reimbursable, uses. More recently, federal enforcement agencies are and have been investigating certain pharmaceutical companies’ product and patient assistance programs, including manufacturer reimbursement support services, relationships with specialty pharmacies, and grants to independent charitable foundations. False Claims Act liability is potentially significant in the healthcare industry because the statute provides for treble damages and mandatory penalties in the tens of thousands of dollars. Conduct that results in a False Claims Act violation may also implicate various other federal criminal false claim and false statement statutes.

In addition, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and its implementing regulations, or HIPAA, created federal criminal laws that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

Analogous state laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers; state laws that restrict the ability of manufacturers to offer co-pay support to patients for certain prescription drugs; state that require drug manufacturers to report information related to clinical trials, or information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures; state laws and local ordinances that require identification or licensing of sales representatives. Foreign governments often have similar regulations, which we also will be subject to in those countries where we market and sell products.

The federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, implemented as the Open Payments program, which requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services information related to direct or indirect payments and other transfers of value to physicians and certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Applicable manufacturers are also required to report information regarding payments and transfers of value provided to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse anesthetists, and certified nurse-midwives.

In addition, to the fraud and abuse laws described above, our business activities likely will be subject to data protection laws and regulations. In the U.S., we may be subject to numerous federal and state laws and regulations governing data privacy and security of health information, and the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information, including state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, state genetic privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection and privacy laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), and the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA. Compliance with these laws is difficult, constantly evolving, and time consuming. These laws may differ from each other in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts. Many of the state laws enable a state attorney general to bring actions and provide private rights of action to consumers as enforcement mechanisms. There is also heightened sensitivity around certain types of health information, such as sensitive condition information or the health information of minors, which may be subject to additional protections. Failure to comply with data protection laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions and create liability for us (which could include civil and/or criminal penalties), private litigation and/or adverse publicity. Federal regulators, state attorneys general, and plaintiffs’ attorneys have been and will likely continue to be active in this space. We may also obtain health information from third parties (e.g., healthcare providers who prescribe our products) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA. Although we are not directly subject to HIPAA, other than potentially with respect to providing certain employee benefits, we could potentially be subject to criminal penalties if we, our affiliates, or our agents knowingly obtain, use, or disclose individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA. HIPAA generally requires that healthcare providers and other covered entities obtain written authorizations from patients prior to disclosing protected health information of the patient (unless an exception to the authorization requirement applies). If authorization is required and the patient fails to execute an authorization, or the authorization fails to contain all required provisions, then we may not be allowed access to, and use of the patient’s information and our research efforts could be impaired or delayed. Furthermore, use of protected health information that is provided to us pursuant to a valid patient authorization is subject to the limits set forth in the authorization (e.g., for use in research and in submissions to regulatory authorities for product approvals). In addition, HIPAA does not replace federal, state, international or other laws that may grant individuals even greater privacy protections.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of available statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors, our marketing, sales, and distribution of any products for which we obtain marketing approval could be subject to challenge, investigation or legal action under one or more of such laws or regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to criminal liability and imprisonment, and significant civil and administrative penalties, including, without limitation, damages, fines, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. To the extent that any of our product candidates receive approval and are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, applicable postmarketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws, and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or transfers of value to healthcare professionals.

Healthcare Reform

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. 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 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.

In the U.S., for example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended, or ACA, substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacted the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, for example, contains provisions that subject biological products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars and may reduce the profitability of drug products through increased rebates for drugs reimbursed by Medicaid programs, extension of Medicaid rebates to Medicaid managed care plans, mandatory discounts for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries and, annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales to federal health care programs. Current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price for any approved products.

Additionally, it is unclear whether the ACA will be overturned or further amended. We cannot predict what effect further changes to the ACA would have on our business. Additionally, other federal health reform measures have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted, including the Budget Control Act of 2011, which includes provisions to reduce the federal deficit. The Budget Control Act, as amended, resulted in the imposition of 2% reductions in Medicare payments to providers, which began in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031 unless additional Congressional action is taken. In 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, previously set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning in 2024. Due to the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, estimated budget deficit increases resulting from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and subsequent legislation, Medicare payments to providers will be further reduced starting in 2025 absent further legislation. These laws and regulations may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

In August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) was signed into law. The IRA includes several provisions that will impact our business to varying degrees, including provisions that create a $2,000 out-of-pocket cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries, impose new manufacturer financial liability on all drugs in Medicare Part D, allow the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D pricing for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition, require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for drug prices that increase faster than inflation and delay the rebate rule that would require pass through of pharmacy benefit manager rebates to beneficiaries. The effect of IRA on our business and the healthcare industry in general is not yet known.

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. For example, on January 5, 2024, the FDA approved Florida's Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, proposal to import certain drugs from Canada for specific state healthcare programs. It is unclear how this program will be implemented, including which drugs will be chosen, and whether it will be subject to legal challenges in the United States or Canada. Other states have also submitted SIP proposals that are pending review by the FDA. Any such approved importation plans, when implemented, may result in lower drug prices for products covered by those programs. Additionally, a number of states have enacted state drug price transparency and reporting laws that could substantially increase our compliance burdens and expose us to greater liability under such state laws if and when we have marketed products.

Healthcare reform efforts have been and may continue to be subject to scrutiny and legal challenge. For example, with respect to the ACA, tax reform legislation was enacted that eliminated the tax penalty established for individuals who do not maintain mandated health insurance coverage beginning in 2019 and, in 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the latest judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. As another example, revisions to regulations under the federal anti-kickback statute would remove protection for traditional Medicare Part D discounts offered by pharmaceutical manufacturers to pharmacy benefit managers and health plans. Pursuant to court order, the removal was delayed and recent legislation imposed a moratorium on implementation of the rule until January 2032. As another example, the IRA drug price negotiation program has been challenged in litigation filed by various pharmaceutical manufacturers and industry groups.

We expect that healthcare reform measures that have been or in the future may be adopted, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product, and could seriously harm any future revenue generation. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payers. Complying with any new legislation and regulatory changes could be time-intensive and expensive, resulting in a material adverse effect on our business.

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the regulatory approvals, if any, of our product candidates may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by Congress of the FDA's approval process may significantly delay or prevent regulatory approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

Environmental and Safety Regulation

We are also subject to numerous federal, state and local laws relating to such matters as safe working conditions, manufacturing practices, environmental protection, fire hazard control, and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances. We may incur significant costs to comply with such laws and regulations now or in the future.

Employees

As of December 31, 2023, we had 37 full-time employees and 3 part-time employees. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We believe our relationship with our employees is good.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in April 2001. Our website address is www.vaccinex.com. Our website and the information contained on, or that can be accessed through, the website will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference in, and are not considered part of, this Annual Report on Form 10-K.