Corbus Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc

All references in this report to “Corbus,” the “Company,” “we,” “us,” or “our” mean Corbus Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries unless we state otherwise, or the context otherwise indicates.

Overview

Corbus Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. (the “Company” or “Corbus”) is an oncology and obesity company with a diversified portfolio and is committed to helping people defeat serious illness by bringing innovative scientific approaches to well-understood biological pathways. Corbus’ oncology pipeline is comprised of two experimental drugs targeting solid tumors: CRB-701, a next-generation antibody drug conjugate ("ADC") that targets the expression of Nectin-4 on cancer cells to release a cytotoxic payload of monomethyl auristatin E ("MMAE") and CRB-601, an anti-integrin monoclonal antibody that blocks the activation of TGFβ expressed on cancer cells. The pipeline also includes CRB-913, a highly peripherally restricted cannabinoid type-1 ("CB1") receptor inverse agonist for the treatment of obesity.

Our pipeline is as follows:

CRB-701

CRB-701 (SYS6002) is a novel clinical stage ADC that targets the expression of Nectin-4 on cancer cells to release a cytotoxic payload of MMAE. In February 2023, the Company obtained a license from CSPC Megalith Biopharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (“CSPC”), a subsidiary of CSPC Pharmaceutical Group Limited, to develop and commercialize the drug in the United States (“U.S.”), Canada, the European Union (including the European Free Trade Area), the United Kingdom (“U.K.”) and Australia. The IND for CRB-701 has been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA"). CRB-701 is currently being investigated by CSPC in a Phase 1 dose expansion clinical trial in patients with advanced solid tumors in China (the "China study"). The Company commenced a corresponding Phase 1 dose escalation study in the U.S. and the U.K. (the "Western study") in April 2024 and completed enrollment of the dose escalation phase in October 2024. The dose optimization portion of the Western study is currently ongoing and the Company is in the process of adding additional clinical sites in Europe.

The targeting of Nectin-4 on cancer cells to release the cytotoxic payload MMAE is a clinically validated target as enfortumab vedotin ("EV" or "PADCEV®") has been approved for the treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer (“mUC”). PADCEV® toxicity and safety limitations include serious and potentially life-threatening skin reactions and peripheral neuropathy, which negatively impact tolerability and dose intensity.

CRB-701 is designed to be an improved next-generation site-specific Nectin-4 targeting ADC (Figure 1). The drug benefits from site-specific conjugation and novel linker technology to create a stable linker and enable homogeneous payload incorporation with a reproducible drug-to-antibody ration (“DAR”) of 2. The linker technology attaches the MMAE cytotoxic payload to the monoclonal antibody and is designed to hold on to the ADC until it binds to Nectin-4 on the target cell. MMAE is then released upon internalization within the target cell. The targeted delivery of CRB-701 is designed to maximize delivery of MMAE while minimizing toxicity to healthy tissues. CRB-701's longer half-life and lower free plasma payload supports less frequent dosing. The complexity and cost of manufacturing CRB-701 has also been reduced by the drug’s single enzyme and improved linker technology.

Figure 1: CRB-701 Next Generation Nectin-4 Targeting ADC

On June 1, 2024, CSPC presented updated Phase 1 dose escalation clinical data at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (“ASCO”) Annual General Conference building upon the data presented at ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (“ASCO GU”) on January 26, 2024. The larger data set included 37 patients of whom 25 patients reflective of seven dose levels had been evaluated for efficacy at the time of the data cut. The emerging clinical data showed that CRB-701 was well-tolerated and demonstrated an overall response rate (“ORR”) of 44% and a disease control rate (“DCR”) of 78% in mUC and 43% ORR and 86% DCR in cervical cancer. No dose limiting toxicities (“DLTs”) were observed in doses up to and including 4.5 mg/kg.

On February 14, 2025, the Company presented Phase 1 dose escalation data from the Western study at ASCO GU 2025. The Western study was conducted at clinical sites in the U.S. and U.K. and enrolled participants with mUC and other solid tumors associated with Nectin-4 expression. These included several tumor types not previously explored by CSPC in the China study. Unlike the China study, participants in the Western study were recruited regardless of their individual Nectin-4 levels. The Western study opened for enrollment in April 2024 and enrollment for dose escalation was completed in October 2024. A December 2024 data cut was presented at ASCO GU 2025 (n=38) of whom 26 participants were evaluable for efficacy. The Western study enrolled participants into the top four dose cohorts used in the China study (1.8, 2.7, 3.6 and 4.5 mg/kg) and adopted the same Q3W regimen. Responses were observed in mUC (1 partial response, n=4), cervical cancer (1 complete response, n=2), head and neck squamous cell carcinoma ("HNSCC") (4 partial responses, n=7) and endometrial cancer (1 partial response, n=2). No DLTs were observed and the drug was generally well tolerated. The dose optimization portion in the Western study is currently ongoing. Participants are being randomized to the 2.7 mg/kg and 3.6 mg/kg cohorts in HNSCC, cervical and mUC tumors.

A comparison of the efficacy data in the Western study (n=26) versus the China study (n=25) is depicted as waterfall plots (Figure 2) and in swimmers plots (Figure 3).

Figure 2: Waterfall Plots

Figure 3: Swimmer Plots

In both the Western study and the China study, CRB-701 (SYS6002) was well-tolerated with the majority of treatment emergent adverse events ("TEAEs") being grade 1 or 2 (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Treatment Emergent Adverse Events

A low number of cases of peripheral neuropathy or skin rash have been reported to date in both studies (Figure 5):

•

Peripheral neuropathy: Western study (Grade 1-2: 5% (n=2/38), Grade 3 or above: zero) was comparable to the China study (Grade 1: 3% (n=1/37), Grade 2 or above: zero). The combined peripheral neuropathy rate for both studies was 4% (n=3/75).

•

Skin rash disorders (broad terms): 24% (n=9/38) in the Western study compared to 8% (n=3/37) in the China study. The combined rate for both studies was 16% (12/75) across all dose groups.

Figure 5: Peripheral Neuropathy and Skin Rash Events

There were relatively low rates of dose modifications in both studies compared to PADCEV® (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Dose Modifications

So far, CRB-701 has demonstrated a favorable safety profile versus competitive Nectin-4 ADC drugs with MMAE payload (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Safety Profile vs. Competitive Nectin-4 Drugs with MMAE Payload

The pharmacokinetic ("PK") profile seen in the Western study was similar to that generated in the China study. CRB-701 demonstrated a longer ADC half-life and lower free-MMAE exposure relative to PADCEV® at comparable dose levels (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Pharmacokinetic Profile for CRB-701 vs. PADCEV®

The dose optimization phase of the Phase 1 Western study has commenced. Participants are being randomized into the 2.7 mg/kg and 3.6 mg/kg cohorts in HNSCC, cervical and mUC tumors.

CRB-601

We are developing CRB-601, a potent and selective anti-αvβ8 integrin monoclonal antibody for the treatment of solid tumors. CRB-601 is an anti-αvβ8 monoclonal antibody that blocks the activation of latent TGFβ present on cancer cells in the tumor microenvironment. In pre-clinical models, CRB-601 demonstrates enhanced anti-tumor activity when combined with an anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor compared to either single agent on their own. Pre-clinical data suggests that blockade of latent TGFβ production by CRB-601 can lead to changes in immune cell infiltration in the tumor microenvironment, potentially enhancing the benefit of PD-1 blockade. CRB-601 is being developed as a potential treatment for patients with solid tumors in combination with existing therapies, including checkpoint inhibitors. The first patient in a Phase 1 dose escalation study was enrolled in December 2024 under an open IND and regulatory approval for the study was received in the U.K. in January 2025.

TGFβ is a multifunctional cytokine involved in many cellular processes including cell growth and differentiation, immune response, wound healing and tissue repair. In cancer, TGFβ mediates immune evasion and plays a key role in promoting cancer cell growth and metastasis via its immunosuppressive effects in the tumor microenvironment. When overexpressed in the tumor milieu, TGFβ is linked to poor clinical outcomes (Figure 9). Similarly, theavb 8 integrin appears to be the only TGFβ activating integrin expressed on regulatory T-cells, highlighting the key contribution of this integrin to immunosuppression. Tumor cells can also evade host immunity by activating TGFb via integrinavb 8.

Figure 9: TGFβ Predicts Poor Clinical Outcomes in a Subset of Cancer Patients

The αvβ8 integrin is a key regulator of TGFβ that is co-opted in many late-stage metastatic cancers to function as a pro-cancer cytokine. TGFβ is normally stored in the extracellular matrix as an inactive latent pro-protein complex. TGFβ is held in an inactive state in association with latency associate peptide ("LAP") and is presented on cell surfaces bylatent transforming growth factor β binding proteins(e.g., LTBP1, GARP); these three components comprising the large latent complex ("LLC"). Upon binding of the LAP-TGFβ complex to theαvβ8 integrin, TGFb is released and binds to TGFb receptors triggering a kinase ("SMAD") signaling pathway that leads to a related transcription translation program of TGFb-targeted genes. CRB-601 was specifically designed to bind at the latent TGFβ activation site on αvβ8 (Figure 10), thereby blocking αvβ8-dependent activation.

Figure 10: Targeting the Integrin Avβ8 Represents a Novel Approach to Regulating TGFβ

CRB-913

CRB-913 is a second-generation highly peripherally restricted CB1 receptor inverse agonist designed to treat obesity. The Company has completed IND-enabling studies and expects to dose the first patient in a Phase 1 study in the first quarter of 2025. CB1 inverse agonism is a highly clinically validated mechanism to induce weight loss, however, neuropsychiatric adverse events have been reported in prior clinical studies with both rimonabant and monlunabant. CRB-913 drug has been specifically formulated to shift the drug exposure from the brain to the periphery to improve safety and tolerability. The drug has a brain to plasma ratio fifty times lower than rimonabant and fifteen times more peripherally restricted than monlunabant (Figure 11).

Figure 11: CRB-913 Higher Degree of Peripheral Restriction than Monlunabant or Rimonabant

In various diet-induced obesity (“DIO”) mouse models, CRB-913 demonstrated the following:

•

As a monotherapy, CRB-913 caused reductions in body weight, body fat content, leptinemia, insulin resistance, liver triglycerides, liver fat deposits, and improvements in liver histology. When used in combination with incretin analogs (tirzepatide, semaglutide, or liraglutide), CRB-913 provides additive weight loss in DIO mice (Figure 12).

•

In an induction/maintenance model, weight loss was maintained with CRB-913 after initial dosing of semaglutide was withdrawn and replaced with CRB-913 (Figure 13).

•

More weight loss was attributable to the burning of fat for CRB-913 as compared to semaglutide. This validates one aspect of the mechanism of action to induce weight loss for highly peripherally restricted CB1 inverse agonists which are postulated to increase metabolism and energy expenditure in peripheral organs (Figure 14).

Figure 12: CRB-913 Additional Weight Loss When Combined with Semaglutide or Tirzepatide

Figure 13: CRB-913 Induction/Maintenance with Semaglutide

Figure 14: CRB-913 Weight Loss Driven by More Fat Loss than Semaglutide

Research and Development

We incurred expenses of approximately $32.2 million and $31.2 million for research and development activities for the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively. These expenses include cash and non-cash expenses relating to the development of our clinical and pre-clinical programs for our pipeline. Research and development expenses are incurred for the development of our drug candidates and consist primarily of payroll and payments to contract research and development companies. To date, these costs are related to generating pre-clinical data in support of IND filings, manufacturing and purchasing drug product for clinical trials, and conducting clinical trials.

Intellectual Property

Our commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for our technologies, products and processes, including proprietary protection for CRB-701, CRB-601, and CRB-913. All patent expiry terms are stated without taking into account any possible patent term adjustments or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity and other governmental fees.

CRB-701: Antibody Drug Conjugate Targeting Nectin-4

We entered into the CSPC License Agreement effective February 12, 2023. Pursuant to the CSPC License Agreement, we received an exclusive license to CRB-701 for the prevention and treatment of all oncology indications in the U.S., Canada, the European Union (including the European Free Trade Area), the U.K, and Australia. The license includes several patent applications covering CRB-701, or a use of CRB-701, that, if granted, are projected to expire in 2042 and 2045.

CRB-601: Anti-Integrin Monoclonal Antibody

We entered into a license agreement (the “UCSF License Agreement”) with the Regents of the University of California (“The Regents”) effective May 26, 2021, as amended to include additional inventions effective November 17, 2022, and further amended to include certain new technology rights effective August 14, 2023. Pursuant to the UCSF License Agreement, we received an exclusive worldwide license to certain patent applications relating to humanized antibodies against integrin αvβ8, an antibody for diagnostic use, along with non-exclusive licenses to certain related know-how and materials. The last of the licensed patent applications, if granted, is projected to expire in 2043. As of December 31, 2023, we own a provisional patent application covering CRB-601. Any U.S. or foreign patents issued from non-provisional patent applications we may file in connection with our provisional patent application would be scheduled to expire in 2044.

CRB-913: Second Generation CB1 Receptor Inverse Agonist

On September 20, 2018, we entered into an exclusive license agreement (the "Jenrin License Agreement") with Jenrin Discovery, LLC (“Jenrin”), which provides us with an exclusive worldwide license to develop and market cannabinoid compounds covered by the Jenrin issued patents and patent applications that cover the composition and method of use of selective cannabinoid receptor modulators. The Jenrin intellectual property portfolio includes eight granted U.S. patents and nine granted patents outside of the U.S. The portfolio includes U.S. Patent No. 8,853,252 which granted with claims relating to the cannabinoid receptor blocker CRB-913 and methods of using the same for treating obesity, diabetes, hepatic disorders, and/or cardiometabolic disorders. The licensed intellectual property portfolio provides intellectual property protection in the U.S. for CRB-913 and these uses through November 2028. We own a patent application covering CRB-913 that can result in patent rights projected to expire in 2043.

Other Intellectual Property Matters

Our commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for our technologies, to operate without infringing the proprietary right of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. We strive to protect our intellectual property through a combination of patents and trademarks, as well as through the confidentiality provisions in our contracts. With respect to our candidates, we endeavor to obtain and maintain patent protection in the U.S. and internationally on all patentable aspects of each product candidate. We cannot be sure that the patents will be granted with respect to any patent applications we may own or license in the future, nor can we be sure that any patents issued or licensed to us in the future will be useful in protecting our technology. For this and more comprehensive risks related to our intellectual property, see “Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Intellectual Property Rights."

In addition to patent protection, we rely on trade secrets and know-how to develop and maintain our competitive position. For example, aspects of our proprietary technology platform are based on unpatented trade secrets and know-how related to the manufacturing of our product candidates. Trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, contractors and commercial partners. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment agreements, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through a relationship with a third party. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our contractors use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

We also seek and will continue to seek trademark protection in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. where available and when appropriate. We use and intend to use these registered marks in connection with our pharmaceutical research and development as well as our product candidates.

Manufacturing and Supply of CRB-701, CRB-601, and CRB-913

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities and rely on third-party contract manufacturing organizations or licensing partners to supply us with drugs for pre-clinical and clinical studies and commercial activities. If a manufacturer or licensing partner is unable to supply us with drugs in a timely manner, we may encounter substantial delays in commencement, enrollment, or completion of our clinical trials or an inability to successfully commercialize any product candidates we may develop. If we are unable to advance our product candidates into and through clinical development, obtain regulatory approval and ultimately commercialize our product candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

CRB-701 is designed to be an improved next generation site-specific Nectin-4 targeting antibody drug conjugate. CRB-701 is a monoclonal antibody attached to an MMAE cytotoxic payload using a proprietary linker technology. CSPC has developed a manufacturing process under current good manufacturing practice (“cGMP”) to produce batches of drug substance and drug product for clinical studies. We have a clinical supply agreement with CSPC to supply drug substance and drug product in support of clinical activities and we will seek to negotiate a commercial supply agreement with CSPC prior to a marketing application.

CRB-601 is a monoclonal antibody and we have developed a manufacturing process under cGMP to produce batches of drug substance and drug product for pre-clinical and clinical studies. CRB-601 is produced by a contract manufacturer through recombinant DNA technology utilizing genetically engineered host cells, upstream cell culture processes and downstream purification methods as required to manufacture the drug substance for use in the manufacture of the drug product.

CRB-913 is a second-generation CB1 receptor inverse agonist, and we have developed manufacturing processes with contract manufacturers under cGMP to produce batches of drug substance and drug product for clinical studies.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by a rapid pace of new innovation and discoveries, fierce competition and strong defense of intellectual property. We face competition from major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions, among others.

Competitors to CRB-701 who have ADCs which target Nectin-4 with MMAE include Bicycle Therapeutics and Mabwell, in addition to Pfizer and its approved PADCEV® product. Competitors to CRB-601 who are also targeting the latent TGFβ pathway in cancer include AbbVie, Pfizer, Pliant and Scholar Rock. Competitors to CRB-913 who are also targeting the CB-1 receptor include Novo Nordisk and Skye Bioscience.

Regulatory Matters

Government Regulation

Our activities and products are significantly regulated by a number of governmental entities, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, in the U.S. and by comparable authorities in other countries. These entities regulate, among other things, the design, research, pre-clinical and clinical development, testing, manufacturing, storage, distribution, import, export, labeling, advertising and marketing of pharmaceutical products and devices. We must obtain regulatory approval from the FDA and comparable authorities in other countries, as applicable, for our drug candidates before we can commercialize such drugs in the U.S. and foreign jurisdictions. Generally, before a new drug can be sold, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety and efficacy must be obtained, organized into a format specific to each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority. The data are often generated in two distinct development states: pre-clinical and clinical. Product development within this regulatory framework takes a number of years and involves the expenditure of substantial resources. Many drug candidates that initially appear promising ultimately do not reach the market because they are found to be unsafe or ineffective when tested. Our inability to commercialize a product would impair our ability to earn future revenues.

The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters, product recalls or withdrawals from the market, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement, or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Development of Drugs in the U.S.

FDA Approval Process

In the U.S., the FDA regulates drugs and biological products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and implementing regulations. CRB-701 and CRB-601 are regulated as biologics; and CRB-913 is regulated as a drug. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of untitled or warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement of profits, civil penalties and criminal prosecution.

The process required by the FDA before a drug or biological product may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following:

•

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

•

submission to the FDA of an investigational new drug, or IND, application which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;

•

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

•

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

•

submission to the FDA of a new drug application, or NDA, or a biologics license application, or BLA, as applicable;

•

satisfactory completion of an FDA advisory committee review, if applicable;

•

satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the product is produced to assess compliance with cGMP requirements and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity; and

•

FDA review and approval of the NDA or BLA.

Data obtained at any stage of testing is susceptible to varying interpretations, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. Moreover, during the regulatory process, new or changed drug approval policies may cause unanticipated delays or rejection of our product. We may not obtain necessary regulatory approvals within a reasonable period of time, if at all, or avoid delays or other problems in testing our products. Moreover, even if we received regulatory approval for a product, the approval may require limitations on use, which could restrict the size of the potential market for the product.

Clinical Trials

The FDA provides that human clinical trials may begin 30 days after receipt and review of an IND application, unless the FDA requests additional information or changes to the study protocol within that period. An IND must be sponsored and filed for each of our proposed drug candidates. Authorization to conduct clinical trials in no way assures that the FDA will ultimately approve the product. Clinical trials are generally conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap. In a Phase 1 trial, the product is given to a small number of patients to test for safety (adverse effects), determine a recommended Phase 2 dose(s) and evaluate any signals of efficacy. Phase 2 trials are conducted on a limited group of the target patient population; safety, optimal dosage and efficacy are studied. A Phase 3 trial is performed in a large patient population, generally over a wide geographic area, to provide evidence for the safety and efficacy of the product. The FDA maintains and exercises oversight authority throughout the clinical trial process.

The clinical stage of development can generally be divided into three sequential phases that may overlap: Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 clinical trials. In Phase 1, generally, small numbers of healthy volunteers are initially exposed to single escalating doses and then multiple escalating doses of the product candidate. The primary purpose of these studies is to assess the metabolism, pharmacologic action and general safety of the drug. Phase 2 trials typically involve studies in disease-affected patients to determine the dose required to produce the desired benefits, common short-term side effects and risks. Phase 2 studies are typically well-controlled, closely monitored, and conducted in a relatively small number of patients, usually involving no more than several hundred subjects. Phase 3 trials are intended to gather the additional information about effectiveness and safety that is needed to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the drug and to provide an adequate basis for physician labeling. Phase 3 studies usually include from several hundred to several thousand subjects and are closely controlled and monitored. In addition to these Phase 1-3 trials, other trials may be conducted to gather additional safety, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic information. Pharmaceutical products with active ingredients equal or similar to those already approved by the FDA often have more streamlined development programs than compounds entirely new to the agency, often skipping Phase 1 and 2 trials.

A clinical plan must be submitted to the FDA prior to commencement of a clinical trial. If the FDA has concerns about the clinical plan or the safety of the proposed studies, they may suspend or terminate the study at any time. Studies must be conducted in accordance with good clinical practice and reporting of study progress and any adverse experiences is required. Studies are also subject to review by independent institutional review boards responsible for overseeing studies at particular sites and protecting human research study subjects. An independent institutional review board may also suspend or terminate a study once initiated. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that once begun, issues will not arise that could cause the trial to be suspended or terminated.

Post-approval studies, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. Sometimes, these studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic condition. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 studies. In other situations, post-approval studies aim to gain additional indications for a medication or develop new dosage forms for a medication.

A product’s safety and effectiveness in one clinical trial is not necessarily indicative of its safety and effectiveness in another clinical trial. Moreover, we may not discover all potential problems with a product even after completing clinical trials on it. Some of our products and technologies have undergone only preclinical testing. As a result, we do not know whether they are safe or effective for humans. Also, regulatory authorities may decide, contrary to our findings, that a product is unsafe or not as effective in actual use as its clinical trial results indicated. This could prevent the product’s widespread use, require its withdrawal from the market or expose us to liability. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Any such action could materially harm us. Clinical trials are critical to the success of our products but are subject to unforeseen and uncontrollable delay, including delay in enrollment of patients. Any delay in clinical trials could delay our commercialization of a product.

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including biological products, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on the website www.clinicaltrials.gov. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, trial sites and investigators, and other aspects of a clinical trial are then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of clinical trials can be delayed in certain circumstances for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of clinical development programs as well as clinical trial design.

Special Protocol Assessment

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act directs the FDA to meet with sponsors, pursuant to a sponsor’s written request, for the purpose of reaching agreement on the design and size of clinical trials intended to form the primary basis of an efficacy claim in a New Drug Application (NDA) or a Biologic Licensing Application (BLA). If an agreement is reached, the FDA will reduce the agreement to writing and make it part of the administrative record. This agreement is called a special protocol assessment (SPA). While the FDA’s guidance on SPAs states that documented SPAs should be considered binding on the review division, the FDA has latitude to change its assessment if certain exceptions apply. Exceptions include public health concerns emerging that were unrecognized at the time of the protocol assessment, identification of a substantial scientific issue essential to the safety or efficacy testing that later comes to light, a sponsor’s failure to follow the protocol agreed upon, or the FDA’s reliance on data, assumptions or information that are determined to be wrong.

Chemistry, Controls and Manufacturing Development

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies typically complete additional animal and laboratory studies, develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug, and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with FDA’s current cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must consistently produce quality batches of the drug, and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug. In addition, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the packaging and that the compound does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Review and Approval in the U.S.

Following pivotal or Phase 3 trial completion, data are analyzed to determine safety and efficacy. Data are then filed with the FDA in an NDA or BLA, along with proposed labeling for the product and information about the manufacturing and testing processes and facilities that will be used to ensure product quality. In the U.S., FDA approval of an NDA or BLA must be obtained before marketing a pharmaceutical product. The NDA or BLA must contain proof of safety, purity, potency, and efficacy, which entails extensive pre-clinical and clinical testing.

The FDA will likely re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and us during the review process. The review and evaluation of applications by the FDA is extensive and time consuming and may take several years to complete. The FDA may conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with current good manufacturing practice requirements and may also audit data from clinical and pre-clinical trials.

There is no assurance that the FDA will act favorably or quickly in making such reviews and significant difficulties or costs may be encountered in our efforts to obtain FDA approvals. The FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, or may condition the approval of the NDA or BLA on other changes to the proposed labeling, development of adequate controls and specifications, or a commitment to conduct post-marketing testing or clinical trials and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized. Further, the FDA may place conditions on approvals including the requirement for a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, to assure the safe use of the drug. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA or BLA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the NDA or BLA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur.

Biologics Exclusivity and Biosimilars

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 ("BPCIA") created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be highly similar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference biological product. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars.

Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products that are administered multiple times to an individual, the biologic and the reference biologic may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic.

The BPCIA includes, among other provisions:

•

a 12-year exclusivity period from the date of first licensure, or BLA approval, of the reference product, during which approval of a 351(k) application referencing that product may not be made effective;

•

a four-year exclusivity period from the date of first licensure of the reference product, during which a 351(k) application referencing that product may not be submitted;

•

an exclusivity period for certain biological products that have been approved through the 351(k) pathway as interchangeable biosimilars; and

•

procedures for identifying and resolving patent disputes involving applications submitted under section 351(k) of the PHSA.

The BPCIA is complex and its interpretation and implementation by the FDA remains unpredictable. In addition, government proposals have sought to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. As a result, the ultimate effect, implementation, and meaning of the BPCIA is subject to uncertainty.

Orphan Drug Designation

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. Orphan product designation must be requested before submitting an NDA or BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan product designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of regulatory review and approval process. In addition to the potential period of exclusivity, orphan designation makes a company eligible for grant funding of up to $400,000 per year for four years to defray costs of clinical trial expenses, tax credits for clinical research expenses and potential exemption from the FDA application user fee.

If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as (i) the drug’s orphan designation is revoked; (ii) its marketing approval is withdrawn; (iii) the orphan exclusivity holder consents to the approval of another applicant’s product; (iv) the orphan exclusivity holder is unable to assure the availability of a sufficient quantity of drug; or (v) a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity by a competitor product. If a drug designated as an orphan product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan drug exclusivity. There can be no assurance that we will receive orphan drug designation for our products.

Special Regulatory Procedures

Fast track designation —The FDA is required to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs and biologics that are intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and that demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs. Under the fast track program, the sponsor of a new drug or biologic candidate may request the FDA to designate the product for a specific indication as a fast track product, concurrent with or after the filing of the IND for the drug candidate. A drug that receives fast track designation is eligible for some or all of the following: (i) more frequent meetings with the FDA to discuss the drug’s development plan and ensure collection of appropriate data needed to support drug approval; (ii) more frequent written communication from the FDA about such things as the design of the proposed clinical trials and use of biomarkers; (iii) eligibility for accelerated approval and priority review, if relevant criteria are met; and (iv) “Rolling Review,” which means that a drug company can submit completed sections of its BLA or NDA for review by the FDA, rather than waiting until every section of the NDA or BLA is completed before the entire application can be reviewed. This rolling review is available if the applicant provides and the FDA approves a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the applicant pays applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing a fast track application does not begin until the last section of the NDA or BLA is submitted. In addition, the fast track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

Priority review —Under FDA policies, a drug candidate may be eligible for priority review. The priority review program provides for expedited review on an NDA or BLA, typically within a six- to eight-month time frame from the time a complete application is accepted for filing. Products regulated by the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, or CDER, are eligible for priority review if they provide a significant improvement compared to marketed products in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease. Products regulated by the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER, are eligible for priority review if they provide a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious or life-threatening disease. A fast track designated drug candidate could be eligible for priority review if supported by clinical data at the time of the BLA or NDA submission.

Accelerated approval —Under the law and the FDA’s accelerated approval regulations, the FDA may approve a drug or biologic for a serious or life-threatening illness that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments based on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. A drug candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw the drug from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for drug candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA.

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

Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, an NDA, BLA or supplement to an NDA or BLA must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug or biological product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Under the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, the FDA has additional authority to take action against manufacturers not adhering to pediatric study requirements. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan drug designation.

U.S. Patent Term Restoration

Depending upon the timing, duration, and specifics of the FDA approval of the use of our current and potential product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 ("Hatch-Waxman Amendments"). The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA or BLA plus the time between the submission date of the NDA or BLA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved biological product is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration.

Drug Development in the European Union

In the European Union, our future products may also be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. Similar to the U.S., the marketing of medicinal products is subject to the granting of marketing authorizations by regulatory agencies. Also, as in the U.S., the various phases of pre-clinical and clinical research in the European Union are subject to significant regulatory controls.

Review and Approval in the European Union

In the European Union, approval of new medicinal products can be obtained through one of three processes: the mutual recognition procedure, the centralized procedure, and the decentralized procedure. We intend to determine which process we will follow, if any, in the future.

Mutual Recognition Procedure — An applicant submits an application in one European Union member state, known as the reference member state. Once the reference member state has granted the marketing authorization, the applicant may choose to submit applications in other concerned member states, requesting them to mutually recognize the marketing authorizations already granted. Under this mutual recognition process, authorities in other concerned member states have 55 days to raise objections, which must then be resolved by discussion among the concerned member states, the reference member state and the applicant within 90 days of the commencement of the mutual recognition procedure. If any disagreement remains, all considerations by authorities in the concerned member states are suspended and the disagreement is resolved through an arbitration process. The mutual recognition procedure results in separate national marketing authorizations in the reference member state.

Centralized Procedure — This procedure is currently mandatory for products developed by means of a biotechnological process and optional for new active substances and other “innovative medicinal products with novel characteristics.” Under this procedure, an application is submitted to the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medical Products. Two European Union member states are appointed to conduct an initial evaluation of each application. These countries each prepare an assessment report that is then used as the basis of a scientific opinion of the Committee on Proprietary Medical Products. If this opinion is favorable, it is sent to the European Commission, which drafts a decision. After consulting with the member states, the European Commission adopts a decision and grants a marketing authorization, which is valid throughout the European Union and confers the same rights and obligations in each of the member states as a marketing authorization granted by that member state.

Decentralized Procedure — The most recently introduced of the three processes for obtaining approval of new medicinal processes in the European Union, the decentralized procedure is similar to the mutual recognition procedure described above, but with differences in the timing that key documents are provided to concerned member states by the reference member state, the overall timing of the procedure and the possibility of, among other things, “clock stops” during the procedure.

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the U.K.

The U.K. ceased being a Member State of the European Union on January 31, 2020. As a result of the Northern Ireland Protocol, following Brexit, the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, remained responsible for approving novel medicines for supply in Northern Ireland under the European Union centralized procedure, and a separate authorization was required to supply the same medicine in Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland). On February 27, 2023, the U.K. government and the European Commission announced a political agreement in principle to replace the Northern Ireland Protocol with a new set of arrangements, known as the “Windsor Framework.” The Windsor Framework was approved by the European Union-U.K. Joint Committee on March 24, 2023, and the medicines aspects of the Windsor Framework have applied since January 1, 2025. This new framework fundamentally changes the previous system under the Northern Ireland Protocol, including with respect to the regulation of medicinal products in the U.K. In particular, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (the “MHRA”) is now responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the U.K. market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland), and the EMA no longer has any role in approving medicinal products destined for Northern Ireland under the European Union centralized procedure. A single U.K.-wide marketing authorization will be granted by the MHRA for all novel medicinal products to be sold in the U.K., enabling products to be sold in a single pack and under a single authorization throughout the U.K. However, although a separate authorization is now required to market medicinal products in the U.K., under an international recognition procedure which was put in place by the MHRA on January 1, 2024, the MHRA may take into account decisions on the approval of a marketing authorization from the EMA (and certain other regulators) when considering an application for a U.K. marketing authorization.

There is now no pre-marketing authorization orphan designation in the U.K. Instead, the MHRA reviews applications for orphan designation in parallel to the corresponding Marketing Authorisation Application. The criteria are essentially the same, but have been tailored for the U.K. market, i.e., the prevalence of the condition in U.K. (rather than the European Union) must not be more than five in 10,000. Should an orphan designation be granted, the period of market exclusivity will be set from the date of first approval of the product in the U.K.

Following the end of the Brexit transition period, the MHRA continues to authorize clinical trials in the U.K. The U.K. has implemented the now-repealed Clinical Trials Directive into national law through the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004. However, on December 12, 2024, the U.K. government introduced a legislative proposal – the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 – that, if implemented, will replace the current regulatory framework for clinical trials in the U.K. The legislative proposal aims to provide a more flexible regime to make it easier to conduct trials in the U.K. and increase the transparency of clinical trials conducted in the U.K. This includes a notification scheme to enable lower-risk clinical trials to be automatically approved by the MHRA, where the risk is similar to that of standard medical care (although such trials would still require ethics committee approval). Such regulations are expected to come into force in early 2026.

Post-Marketing Requirements

Following approval of a new product, a pharmaceutical company and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA and other federal and state regulatory authorities, including, among other things, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting to applicable regulatory authorities of adverse experiences with the product, providing the regulatory authorities with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting drugs for uses or in patient populations not described in the drug’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such off-label uses. Modifications or enhancements to the products or labeling or changes of site of manufacture are often subject to the approval of the FDA and other regulators, which may or may not be received or may result in a lengthy review process. The FDA regulations require the products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with current good manufacturing practices, and NDA and BLA holders must list their products and register their manufacturing establishments with the FDA. These regulations also impose certain organizational, procedural and documentation requirements with respect to manufacturing and quality assurance activities. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with current good manufacturing practice and other laws. NDA and BLA holders using contract manufacturers, laboratories or packagers are responsible for the selection and monitoring of qualified firms. These firms are subject to inspections by the FDA at any time, and the discovery of violative conditions could result in enforcement actions that interrupt the operation of any such facilities or the ability to distribute products manufactured, processed or tested by them.

Other Regulatory Matters

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in addition to the FDA, including, in the U.S., the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and state and local governments. These regulations include:

•

the federal healthcare program anti-kickback law which prohibits, among other things, persons from soliciting, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce either the referral of an individual, for an item or service or the purchasing or ordering of a good or service, for which payment may be made under federal healthcare programs such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs;

•

federal false claims laws which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment from Medicare, Medicaid, or other government reimbursement programs that are false or fraudulent. The government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal healthcare program anti-kickback law or related to off-label promotion constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal false claims laws;

•

the Federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act within the ACA, and its implementing regulations, require that certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report information related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, the physicians and teaching hospitals and to report annually certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members;

•

the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and its implementing regulations, imposes certain requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to “business associates”—independent contractors or agents of covered entities that receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates and possibly other persons, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions;

•

applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act;

•

The Lanham Act and federal antitrust laws; and

•

state law equivalents of each of the above federal laws, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payer, including commercial insurers, and state laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by federal laws, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, traceability, and storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products. Moreover, some pharmaceutical products may be classified as controlled substances and the handling of any controlled substances must comply with the U.S. Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act.

Individual states have also established controlled substance laws and regulations. Though state-controlled substances laws often mirror federal law because the states are separate jurisdictions, they may separately schedule drugs, as well. While some states automatically schedule a drug based on federal action, other states schedule drugs through rulemaking or a legislative action. The requirement for state registrations could also result in delay of the manufacturing, distribution of our drugs or in the completion of our current clinical studies. We and our manufacturing vendors and clinical sites must also obtain separate state registrations, permits or licenses to be able to obtain, handle, and distribute controlled substances for clinical trials or commercial sale, and failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements could lead to enforcement and sanctions by the states in addition to those from the DEA or otherwise arising under federal law.

Third-Party Payer Coverage and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any of our drug candidates that ultimately may obtain regulatory approval. In both the U.S. and foreign markets, our ability to commercialize our product candidates successfully, and to attract commercialization partners for our product candidates, depends in significant part on the availability of adequate financial coverage and reimbursement from third-party payers, including, in the U.S., governmental payers such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, managed care organizations, and private health insurers. Medicare is a federally funded program managed by the CMS, through local fiscal intermediaries and carriers that administer coverage and reimbursement for certain healthcare items and services furnished to the elderly and disabled. Medicaid is an insurance program for certain categories of patients whose income and assets fall below state defined levels and who are otherwise uninsured that is both federally and state funded and managed by each state. The federal government sets general guidelines for Medicaid and each state creates specific regulations that govern its individual program. Each payer has its own process and standards for determining whether it will cover and reimburse a procedure or particular product. Private payers often rely on the lead of the governmental payers in rendering coverage and reimbursement determinations. Therefore, achieving favorable CMS coverage and reimbursement is usually a significant gating issue for successful introduction of a new product. The competitive position of some of our products will depend, in part, upon the extent of coverage and adequate reimbursement for such products and for the procedures in which such products are used. Prices at which we or our customers seek reimbursement for our product candidates can be subject to challenge, reduction or denial by the government and other payers.

The U.S. Congress and state legislatures may, from time to time, propose and adopt initiatives aimed at cost containment, which could impact our ability to sell our product candidates profitably. For example, the two-year spending law signed by the President of U.S. on February 9, 2018 includes a provision raising the manufacturer discount to 70% in 2019 in the Medicare Part D coverage gap, also known as the “donut hole.” Under prior law, manufacturers were required to provide a 50% discount on prescription drugs purchased in the donut hole. Manufacturers of branded drugs will face much higher liabilities from donut hole payments beginning in 2019, estimated at multiple billions of dollars for some of the largest companies.

The cost of pharmaceuticals continues to generate substantial governmental and third-party payer interest. We expect that the pharmaceutical industry will experience pricing pressures due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of managed care organizations and additional legislative proposals. Our results of operations could be adversely affected by current and future healthcare reforms.

Some third-party payers also require pre-approval of coverage for new or innovative devices or drug therapies before they will reimburse healthcare providers that use such therapies. While we cannot predict whether any proposed cost-containment measures will be adopted or otherwise implemented in the future, the announcement or adoption of these proposals could have a material adverse effect on our ability to obtain adequate prices for our product candidates and operate profitably.

In addition, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product, or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the U.S. and generally tend to be significantly lower.

Employees

We had 28 full-time employees at December 31, 2024. All our employees are engaged in administration, finance, clinical, biology, and manufacturing functions. We believe our relations with our employees are good. In addition, we utilize and will continue to utilize consultants, clinical research organizations and third parties to perform our pre-clinical studies, clinical studies, manufacturing, and regulatory functions.

Corporate Information

Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (formerly known as JB Therapeutics Inc.), was incorporated on April 24, 2009 under the laws of the State of Delaware. On April 11, 2014, JB Therapeutics, Inc. completed a merger with Corbus Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Upon the consummation of the merger, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Corbus Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. which continues to operate the business of Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at 500 River Ridge Drive, Norwood, Massachusetts 02062, and our telephone number is (617) 963-0100. Our website address iswww.corbuspharma.com.

We make available free of charge through the Investor Relations link on our website, www.corbuspharma.com, access to press releases and investor presentations, as well as all materials that we file electronically with the SEC, including our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports, filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after electronically filing such materials with, or furnishing them to, the SEC. During the period covered by this Form 10-K, we made all such materials available through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after filing such materials with the SEC. In addition, the SEC maintains an Internet website, www.sec.gov, that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information that we file electronically with the SEC.

This report and the information incorporated herein by reference contain references to trademarks, service marks and trade names owned by us or other companies. Solely for convenience, trademarks, service marks and trade names referred to in this report and the information incorporated herein, including logos, artwork, and other visual displays, may appear without the ® or ™ symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or the rights of the applicable licensor to these trademarks, service marks and trade names. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trade names, service marks or trademarks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies. Other trademarks, trade names and service marks appearing in this report are the property of their respective owners.