Spero Therapeutics, Inc.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on identifying and developing novel treatments for rare diseases and diseases caused by multi-drug resistant (“MDR”) bacterial infections with high unmet need. Since our inception in 2013, we have focused our efforts and financial resources on acquiring and developing product and technology rights, building our intellectual property portfolio and conducting research and development activities for our product candidates. We do not have any products approved for sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales. We believe that our novel product candidates, if successfully developed and approved, could provide meaningful benefits to patients suffering from serious rare diseases and life-threatening bacterial infections, in both the community and hospital settings. Our pipeline consists of mid- to late-stage clinical assets.

Our most advanced clinical stage product candidate, tebipenem HBr, is in Phase 3 development, with the potential to be the first broad-spectrum oral carbapenem to treat adult patients with complicated urinary tract infections (“cUTIs”), including pyelonephritis, caused by certain microorganisms. The other programs in our pipeline are SPR206 and SPR720. SPR206 is an intravenously (“IV”) administered next generation polymyxin product candidate, for the treatment of hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (“HABP/VABP”) caused by MDR Gram-negative bacterial infections. In March 2025, following a reprioritization of our programs, we announced that we are no longer pursuing a planned Phase 2 clinical trial for SPR206. SPR720 is a product candidate for first-line treatment of nontuberculous mycobacterial (“NTM”) pulmonary disease. In October 2024, we announced that results from a planned interim analysis of our Phase 2a clinical trial for SPR720 demonstrated the oral agent did not meet its primary endpoint, and we elected to suspend development of SPR720 in its oral formulation. We are currently completing analysis of remaining data from all 25 patients dosed in the trial ahead of determining next steps.

Antibiotic Background

Antibiotics are a class of medications used to treat diseases caused by bacterial infections.

There are two main groups of bacteria, Gram-positive bacteria and Gram-negative bacteria, which are distinguished by structural differences in their cellular envelope. Gram-positive bacteria are surrounded by a single lipid-based cell membrane and a thick cell wall, while Gram-negative bacteria are encircled by two lipid membranes, an inner membrane and an outer membrane, with a thinner cell wall in between, as shown in the illustration below.

Antibiotics are evaluated according to several criteria, including:

•

Spectrum. Antibiotics that are effective against a wide variety of bacteria are considered to be broad-spectrum, while those that act upon a limited number of bacteria are considered to be narrow-spectrum.

•

Potency. Potency refers to the amount of antibiotic required to kill or inhibit growth of bacteriain vitro. Potency is commonly expressed as the minimum inhibitory concentration (“MIC”) in µg/mL or mg/L, which is the lowest concentration of drug needed to inhibit bacterial growth. Antibiotics with lower MICs are considered to be more potent.

•

Resistance. Antibiotic resistance refers to the inability of an antibiotic to effectively control bacterial growth. Some bacteria are naturally resistant to certain types of antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance can also occur due to genetic mutations or changes in gene expression. There are numerous mechanisms responsible for antibiotic resistance, and resistance mechanisms are often found together and can be transferred between different bacteria, leading to multi-drug resistance.

Growing Antibiotic Resistance in the Hospital and Community Settings

Antibiotic resistance poses a grave threat to global health as resistance rates among various bacteria are increasing. In a systematic analysis examining the global burden of bacterial resistance published in The Lancet, there were an estimated 4.71 million deaths associated with drug-resistant infections in 2021. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) estimates that the annual impact of antibiotic-resistant infections on the U.S. economy is $20–$35 billion in direct health care costs.

Both Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens harbor resistance mechanisms and contribute to the global threat. According to the CDC, Gram-negative pathogens are particularly worrisome because they are increasingly developing resistance to currently used drugs. In 2019, the CDC designated antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria such as carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii(“CRAB”), MDRPseudomonas aeruginosa (“MDR PA”), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (“CRE”), and extended-spectrum-β-lactamase (“ESBL”)-producing Enterobacterales as urgent or serious threats. These pathogens are associated with significant mortality because of the increased incidence of antibiotic resistance and the lack of effective treatment options. One reason these ESBL -producing pathogens are deemed a serious threat is their ability to spread within the community. This, and their ability to break down commonly used antibiotics, such as penicillins and cephalosporins, make treating cUTI infections more challenging.

As a second example, NTM pulmonary infection that occurs through inhalation of mycobacteria from environmental sources, especially in water and soil, may cause a chronic and progressive pulmonary disease. The estimated total NTM pulmonary disease prevalence in the United States, Europe and Japan is approximately 245,000 diagnosed patients, with approximately 95,000 of these diagnosed patients in the United States. NTM pulmonary disease has a higher frequency among older individuals, particularly women. Most NTM pulmonary disease is due to Mycobacterium avium complex (“MAC”), followed by Mycobacterium abscessus and Mycobacterium kansasii.

Our Clinical Programs

The table below summarizes our anticipated development plans for our product candidates:

The Company discontinued the SPR206 program in March 2025

The Company has elected to suspend its current development program for the oral dosing of SPR720, as it completes Phase 2a data analysis

Tebipenem HBr (tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide): Potential First Oral Carbapenem for Use in Adults with cUTI

Tebipenem HBr is an oral carbapenem in development to treat cUTI, including pyelonephritis, caused by certain microorganisms, in adult patients who have limited oral treatment options.

Urinary tract infections (“UTIs”) are among the most common bacterial diseases worldwide and have significant clinical and economic burden. cUTIs are UTIs that are associated with the presence of any number of underlying factors in patients, such as anatomical or functional abnormalities of the urinary tract. Patients with cUTI have a higher risk of recurrence and progression to severe infection, a higher likelihood of harboring a resistant pathogen, and a greater risk of morbidity and mortality, when compared to uncomplicated UTIs.

Currently, fluoroquinolones are the most widely used antibiotic class in treating community and hospital-acquired Gram-negative infections, including UTIs; however, they have encountered increasing resistance among MDR Gram-negative bacteria and are associated with significant adverse effects. Co-resistance further compounds the issue of antibiotic resistance. For instance, more than 40% of E. coli isolates with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole resistance were co-resistant to levofloxacin.

While current UTI treatment guidelines published by the Infectious Diseases Society of America identify fluoroquinolones as an appropriate empirical therapy option, this recommendation is contingent on local resistance rates being less than 10%. However, the high rates of fluoroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli (“E. coli”) found in the United States today in the community and hospital settings, as shown in the table below, would suggest that there is a need for an antibiotic that is effective against fluoroquinolone-resistant infections.

The table below reflects resistance rates in the United States in the community and hospital settings.

In addition, the FDA has issued several warnings against the use of fluoroquinolones in certain patients and determined that fluoroquinolones should be reserved for use in patients with these conditions who have no alternative treatment options; safety warnings in the labeling of fluoroquinolone class products have been further strengthened over the past several years.

Tebipenem HBr Key Attributes

Tebipenem HBr is designed to be the first broad-spectrum oral carbapenem-class antibiotic to treat cUTI, including pyelonephritis caused by certain microorganisms in adults who have limited oral treatment options. Unlike other carbapenems on the U.S. market, which are only available as IV-administered infusions, tebipenem HBr is an orally administered tablet. Oral administration may potentially allow physicians to avoid IV-administered antibiotics for otherwise healthy or stable patients, and the avoidance of IV administration could lead to reduced healthcare resource utilization.

We believe tebipenem HBr is well positioned to meet the unmet need for an oral therapy for patients with cUTI, including pyelonephritis, caused by certain microorganisms, who have limited oral treatment options. With an estimated 3.4 million cases each year in the United States, cUTI is a leading cause of infection-related hospitalization. In a nationwide cohort study, the total median 30-day post index all-cause total healthcare costs for cUTI care ranged from $1,531 for patients initially identified in the outpatient setting to $13,028 for patients initially identified in the inpatient setting. While drugs such astrimethoprim/ sulfamethoxazole and fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin) have been the primary oral options for treatment of UTIs caused by Gram-negative organisms, nearly 30% to 35% of UTIs are caused by resistant bacteria, which has led to increased use of IV-administered therapeutics such as carbapenems. Carbapenems have been utilized for more than 30 years and are considered the standard of care for many serious MDR Gram-negative bacterial infections but have only been available as IV-administered formulations. Currently, there are no commercially available oral carbapenems for use in cUTI in adults.

The growing challenges, caused by limited effective oral treatment options for cUTI and pyelonephritis and the increasing resistance rates amongst uropathogens, place a significant burden on both patients and the healthcare system, in terms of recurrent infections, hospitalizations, and cost. Given the observed activity of tebipenem HBr against a broad spectrum of bacterial pathogens, if approved, tebipenem HBr could be used in the hospital setting to transition appropriate patients hospitalized for cUTI to an oral therapy, potentially allowing them to discharge earlier from the hospital.

Tebipenem HBr Clinical Development Overview

In September 2022, we entered into the GSK License Agreement, for the development, manufacturing and commercialization of tebipenem HBr. Pursuant to the GSK License Agreement, we received a $66.0 million upfront payment from GSK with eligibility to receive up to $525.0 million in development, sales, and commercial milestones payments, as well as low single-digit to low double-digit tiered royalties on net product sales. In exchange, GSK received an exclusive license to develop and commercialize tebipenem pivoxil and tebipenem pivoxil HBr in all territories, except Japan, and certain other Asian countries, territories that are retained by our partner Meiji Seika Pharma Co. Ltd. (“Meiji”). Concurrent with the GSK License Agreement, an affiliate of GSK purchased 7,450,000 shares of our common stock at a purchase price of $1.20805 per share for an aggregate purchase price of $9.0 million.

Under the License Agreement, we are responsible for the execution and costs of the follow-up Phase 3 clinical trial of tebipenem HBr. GSK is responsible for the execution and costs of any additional further development, including additional Phase 3 regulatory filing and commercialization activities for tebipenem HBr in the GSK Territory (as defined below). See “Collaboration, License and Service Agreements - Tebipenem HBr Agreements - GSK License Agreement” below for additional information.

Ongoing Clinical Trials

On July 31, 2023, we announced that we received written agreement from the FDA, under a Special Protocol Assessment (“SPA”), on the design and size of PIVOT-PO, a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of tebipenem HBr in patients with cUTI, including acute pyelonephritis (“AP”).

PIVOT-PO is a global, randomized, double-blind, pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of oral tebipenem HBr vs. IV imipenem cilastatin, in hospitalized adult patients with cUTI/AP. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive tebipenem HBr (600 mg) orally every six hours, or imipenem cilastatin (500 mg) IV every six hours, for a total of seven to ten days. The primary efficacy endpoint will be overall response (composite of clinical cure plus microbiological eradication) at the test-of-cure visit. The primary analysis for the trial will be an assessment of non-inferiority (“NI”) in the microbiological intention-to-treat population, based on a 10% NI margin. Randomization is stratified by age, baseline diagnosis (cUTI or AP), and the presence or absence of urinary tract instrumentation.

In December 2023, we commenced enrollment in PIVOT-PO. The pre-planned interim analysis of PIVOT-PO is expected to be completed in the second quarter of 2025.

Completed Clinical Trials

In September 2020, results from the ADAPT-PO Phase 3 clinical trial were announced, comparing the oral regimen of tebipenem HBr with the IV regimen of ertapenem for treating adults with cUTI, including AP. The global, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluated safety and efficacy in hospitalized patients, with the primary endpoint being overall response (clinical cure and microbiological response) at the test-of-cure (“TOC”) in the microbiological intent-to-treat population.

FDA Status

We included data from our completed ADAPT-PO Phase 3 clinical trial of tebipenem HBr, together with requisite safety data, chemistry, manufacturing and controls (“CMC”) information, clinical pharmacology and nonclinical studies, in our New Drug Application (“NDA”) submission to the FDA, which was accepted by the FDA in late December 2022. The NDA was seeking approval for tebipenem HBr oral tablets for treatment of cUTI, including pyelonephritis, caused by certain microorganisms in adult patients who have limited oral treatment options. The FDA granted Priority Review designation with a PDUFA target action date of June 27, 2022.

Based upon feedback from an FDA Late Cycle Meeting in late April 2022, we determined to discontinue our own near-term commercialization activities for tebipenem HBr and to restructure our business, including focusing on potential partnership or other opportunities for tebipenem HBr.

In June 2022, we received a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”) from the FDA regarding our NDA. In the CRL, the FDA communicated that it had completed its review of the NDA and determined that the NDA could not be approved in its present form. The FDA ultimately concluded that the Phase 3 cUTI clinical trial of tebipenem HBr (ADAPT-PO) was insufficient to support approval and that an additional clinical study would be required to address the deficiency noted in the CRL.

On August 2, 2022, we held a Type A meeting with the FDA to gain further insights as to the pathway forward towards a potential regulatory approval for tebipenem HBr. We also achieved alignment with the FDA on key components of the proposed pivotal Phase 3 trial design. We engaged with the FDA by means of a SPA in the first half of 2023. On July 31, 2023, we announced that we received written agreement from the FDA, under a SPA, on the design and size of the PIVOT-PO clinical trial.

The FDA has designated tebipenem HBr as a Qualified Infectious Disease Product (“QIDP”) for the treatment of cUTI, Community-acquired pneumonia (“CABP”) and diabetic foot infections (“DFI”) under the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now (“GAIN”) Act. Among other benefits of a QIDP designation, the first marketing application for the QIDP-designated indication qualifies for priority review by the FDA. The QIDP designation for tebipenem HBr, however, does not guarantee a faster development process or ensure FDA approval. Further, if tebipenem HBr is approved for the treatment of cUTI, CABP or DFI, the FDA’s QIDP designation previously granted to tebipenem HBr for those indications will entitle the drug product to receive a one-time five-year extension to any non-patent exclusivity period awarded to tebipenem HBr in the United States, such as a five-year New Chemical Entity exclusivity granted under the Hatch-Waxman Act, among other possible periods of regulatory exclusivity that would qualify for a GAIN exclusivity extension. Additionally, FDA has granted fast track designation for tebipenem HBr in the treatment of cUTI/AP.

SPR206: IV-Administered Investigational Phase 2 Product Candidate Deisgined to Treat MDR Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections in the Hospital Setting.

MDR and extensively drug-resistant (“XDR”) Gram-negative pathogens, including CRAB, MDR PA, and CRE have been classified by the CDC and World Health Organization (“WHO”) as serious or urgent/critical threats (CDC 2019, WHO 2017). Currently, the standard-of-care (“SOC”) treatment for such infections are associated with low clinical cure rates, stubbornly high mortality rates, and on-therapy resistance development. Fortunately, resistance rates among MDR and CR strains of A. baumannii and P. aeruginosa to the available polymyxin therapeutics including polymyxin B (“PMB”) or colistin (“COL”) remain relatively low and, consequently, these agents are increasingly being utilized in the treatment of such infections. However, conventional polymyxins are often nephrotoxic and/or neurotoxic. The rise of these resistant pathogens has created an urgent need for novel, safer, and more effective treatment options.

Current SOC therapies for MDR and XDR infections face several limitations, making treatment increasingly challenging. Conventional antibiotics, including carbapenems, cephalosporins, and aminoglycosides, are often ineffective due to widespread resistance mechanisms such as beta-lactamase, efflux pumps, and porin mutations. COL and PMB are among the last-resort options but are associated with significant nephrotoxicity and neurotoxicity, limiting their use. Newer beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations, while promising, may not cover all resistant strains, particularly metallo-b-lactamase-producing organisms. Additionally, the development of resistance to recently introduced agents raises concerns about the durability of these treatments as monotherapies.

SPR206 Key Attributes

We believe that with the following key attributes, SPR206 has the potential to become a safe and effective treatment for serious Gram-negative infections:

•

Potential to Expand the Potency of SOC Antibiotics. SPR206 is designed to expand the potency of SOC antibiotics by restoring and expanding their Gram-negative activity. We believe that this novel mechanism could provide a new option for patients with resistant Gram-negative infections, thereby improving therapeutic outcomes, decreasing physicians’ reliance on older poorly tolerated and ineffective drugs.

•

SPR206 Appears to be a Generally Safe and Potent IV-Administered Direct-Acting Agent, Based on Current Data. SPR206 is designed to interact with lipopolysaccharide (“LPS”) to disrupt the outer membrane including that of carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii. Data from SPR206 in vitro andin vivo Good Laboratory Practice (“GLP”) safety pharmacology and absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (“ADME”) studies and 14-day, two-species GLP toxicology studies provide support for an acceptable safety profile, which led to SPR206’s designation as a clinical candidate and the initiation of Phase 1 clinical trial in December 2018. Phase 1 data demonstrates that SPR206 is well-tolerated at doses that are likely to be within a therapeutic range for target MDR Gram-negative bacterial infections and has a safety profile that we believe supports the further development of SPR206.

•

SPR206 is an Investigational Phase 2 Product Candidate. SPR206 was developed as a treatment for high-risk patients with suspected or known Gram-negative infections such as CRE, CRAB and MDR PA to prevent mortality and reduce the length of stay in the hospital setting. In March 2025, following a reprioritization of our programs, we announced that we are no longer pursuing a planned Phase 2 clinical trial for this program.

SPR206 is an investigational Phase 2 product designed to treat hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia only (HABP/VABP) caused by carbapenem-resistant pathogens, infections affecting approximately 25,000 patients in the United States. This next generation polymyxin is well-tolerated and less nephrotoxic compared to Polymyxin B and Colistin according to data currently available. SPR206 exhibits potent antibacterial activity against four major pathogens identified by the CDC as being particularly challenging and enhances the efficacy of SOC agents by increasing kill rates and preventing resistance development. Both preclinical and clinical data support its potential efficacy, lung penetration, and safety/tolerability. Additionally, SPR206 benefits from strong intellectual property protection, with a composition of matter patent valid through 2039, as well as QIDP and fast track designations.

In Vitro Activity of SPR206 against Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria

Results from multiple susceptibility studies against contemporary clinical isolates suggest that SPR206 possesses potent activity against CRAB, carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa and carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae.

SPR206 Clinical Development Overview

Phase 2 Clinical Trial Update

In February 2024, we announced clearance by the FDA for our IND to evaluate SPR206 in a Phase 2 clinical trial. The Phase 2 clinical trial was designed as a randomized, double-blinded, controlled, multicenter study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics (“PK”) of SPR206 in combination with select antibiotics for the treatment of patients diagnosed with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (“HABP/VABP”), caused by carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Approximately 60 adult hospitalized patients were expected to be enrolled. Patients would have received treatment for 7−14 days and evaluated through assessment of post-baseline clinical outcomes.

A Phase 2 clinical trial was supported by preclinical data as well as the results of multiple Phase 1 clinical trials. These Phase 1 trials have demonstrated SPR206's lack of nephrotoxicity at predicted therapeutic dose levels and its ability to achieve mean lung epithelial lining fluid (“ELF”) exposures above the MIC for targeted Gram-negative pathogens, when administered three times daily at 100 mg. In March 2025, following a reprioritization of our programs, we announced that we are no longer pursuing a Phase 2 clinical trial for this program.

Completed Clinical Trials

In February 2022, we reported results from a Phase 1 BAL clinical trial designed as an open-label study that enrolled thirty healthy volunteers into five cohorts. The objectives of the study were to evaluate the intrapulmonary PK, including ELF and alveolar macrophage (“AM”) concentrations of SPR206 compared to plasma concentrations. These data are important to establish dose requirements for clinical efficacy of SPR206 in the setting of hospital-acquired pneumonia (“HAP”)/ventilator-associated pneumonia (“VAP”).

Subjects received three 100 mg doses of SPR206 infused every eight hours over one day. Results from the trial showed that SPR206 was generally well-tolerated with a mean lung ELF to plasma concentration ratio of 0.264, with AUC from 0-8 hours used to estimate the total uptake of SPR206. Importantly, the mean concentration of SPR206 in the lung ELF exceeded the SPR206 MIC for targeted gram-negative pathogens for the entirety of the 8-hour dosing period. This study was conducted in collaboration with, and with financial support from, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) (Award No. W81XWH1910295). The initiation of this clinical trial triggered the first of two milestone payments related to the study from our development partner, Everest Medicines II Limited (“Everest”).

In March 2022, we reported results from the Phase 1 RIS clinical trial, an open-label study that enrolled forty volunteers into five cohorts. Cohort 1 was healthy volunteers, cohorts 2-4 were clinically stable subjects with various degrees of renal impairment, and cohort 5 was clinically stable subjects with end stage renal disease (“ESRD”) on hemodialysis. The objectives of the study were to evaluate the PK of SPR206 in healthy subjects and in those with various degrees of renal impairment, including ESRD. These data are important to establish if the concentrations of SPR206 are impacted by differences in renal function and whether dose adjustments for SPR206 would be recommended in such context. Subjects received a single 100 mg infusion of SPR206. Mostly mild but no serious treatment-related adverse events were reported. Systemic exposure to SPR206 increased as renal function decreased, with mean area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC0–last) values 39% to 239% greater in subjects with RI vs healthy subjects. Dose adjustments for patients with renal impairment have been incorporated into the Phase 2 protocol.

The objectives of the study were to evaluate the PK of SPR206 in healthy subjects and in those with various degrees of renal impairment, including ESRD. These data are important to establish if the concentrations of SPR206 are impacted by differences in renal function and whether dose adjustments for SPR206 would be recommended in such context. This study was also conducted in collaboration with, and with financial support from, the DoD (Award No. W81XWH1910295).

SPR206 has been granted QIDP designation and fast track designation by the FDA for the treatment of cUTI and hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). SPR206 has been granted fastt rack designation by the FDA for the treatment of HABP and VABP due to carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii-calcoaceticus complex (CRABc) and carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa(CRPA).

SPR720: Novel Oral Antibiotic for First-Line Treatment of NTM Pulmonary Disease

NTM-PD is a chronic lung infection caused by a ubiquitous environmental organism that causes pulmonary disease, progressive lung damage and respiratory failure. Patients at risk include those with compromised immune systems or underlying pulmonary disorders. NTM pulmonary disease is associated with a five-year all-cause mortality rate of 35% and high healthcare costs. NTM infections represent a growing global health concern and major unmet medical need because of the lack of new medications to combat these bacteria. MAC is the most common NTM to cause human infection, making up around 80% of all NTM infections.

The current treatment for NTM pulmonary disease is lengthy and involves combination therapy, often three or more antibiotics. In addition, many patients go undiagnosed and could benefit from additional testing. The most common treatment for NTM infections is prolonged combination therapy (continuing for approximately 12–24 months) with drugs traditionally used for tuberculosis (“TB”) that have limited efficacy and poor tolerability. Treatment failure is common and is often due to inability to tolerate the regimen or poor adherence.

SPR720 Key Attributes

•

Novel mechanism. SPR720 employs a novel mechanism with no evidence of cross-resistance with marketed antibiotics and low propensity for selection of resistance. Drug resistance to currently available treatments in NTM species threatens adequate control of the disease. A novel mechanism may help evade existing modes of resistance. SPR720 is applicable to both non-refractory and refractory disease.

•

Broad spectrum of activity. SPR720 has demonstrated a broad spectrum of activity in preclinical studies against the most common organisms causing NTM infections, including MAC, Mycobacterium abscessusand Mycobacterium kansasii.

•

SPR720 Development Suspended. In October 2024, we suspended development of the SPR720 oral program for the treatment of NTM-PD, following a planned interim analysis of the Phase 2a proof-of-concept study of SPR720, which demonstrated the study did not meet its primary endpoint. Spero is completing analysis of remaining data from all 25 patients dosed in the trial ahead of determining next steps.

NTM infection occurs in many different types of patients. NTM pulmonary disease often occurs in people with compromised immune systems or those with respiratory conditions such as bronchiectasis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis and asthma. Increasing prevalence of NTM pulmonary disease in the United States is estimated at 6%–10% annually. The estimated total NTM pulmonary disease prevalence in the United States, Europe and Japan is approximately 245,000 diagnosed patients. Women and people aged 65 years or older (a population that is growing in number) have higher incidence and prevalence rates. We believe there is a need for new, potent therapies for NTM pulmonary disease.

SPR720 Clinical Development Overview

Clinical Trials

On November 14, 2022, we announced the re-initiation of a Phase 2a clinical trial of SPR720 (SPR720-202) and that we opened clinical trial sites. The trial enrolled 25 treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced, non-refractory patients with NTM pulmonary disease, due to MAC. The primary endpoint of the study was evaluating changes in bacterial load in sputum samples from baseline to the end of the 56-day treatment period. Key secondary endpoints include assessments of clinical response, PK, safety and tolerability and quality of life. Trial enrollment concluded in July 2024.

Additionally, we conducted two Phase 1 clinical trials – one to assess intrapulmonary PK of SPR719 (the active moiety of the prodrug SPR720) in a bronchoalveolar lavage (“BAL”) study and another to evaluate the effect on the PK of SPR720, azithromycin and ethambutol when co-administered together in healthy volunteers.

In October 2024, we suspended development of the SPR720 oral program for the treatment of NTM-PD, following a planned interim analysis of the Phase 2a proof-of-concept study of SPR720, which demonstrated the study did not meet its primary endpoint. While data showed antimicrobial activity associated with SPR720, the analysis did not show sufficient separation from placebo and highlighted potential dose limiting safety issues in patients dosed at 1,000 mg orally once daily, including three cases of reversible grade 3 hepatotoxicity. We are completing analysis of the remaining data from all 25 patients dosed in the trial ahead of determining next steps.

The FDA has granted orphan drug designation to SPR720 for the treatment of nontuberculous mycobacteria infection, a designation that is given to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 persons in the United States. An orphan drug designation can provide specific benefits including up to seven years of market exclusivity in the United States upon regulatory approval. We received QIDP designation by the FDA for SPR720 for the treatment of lung infections caused by nontuberculous mycobacteria and for the treatment of lung infections caused by M. tuberculosis. In addition, SPR720 also was awarded fast track designation by the FDA for treatment of adult patients with NTM pulmonary disease. Neither the QIDP nor orphan drug designation nor fast track designation, however, guarantee a faster development process or ensure FDA approval.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to identify and develop novel treatments focusing on areas of high unmet medical need for safe and effective treatments. Key elements of our strategy are as follows:

•

In partnership with GSK, advance tebipenem HBr through completion of the Phase 3 clinical trial and advise and consult with GSK through the regulatory approval process. We granted GSK an exclusive license to develop and commercialize tebipenem pivoxil and tebipenem pivoxil HBr in all territories, except Japan, and certain other Asian countries, territories which are retained by our partner Meiji. We are responsible for execution and costs of the tebipenem HBr Phase 3 clinical trial in the United States. GSK is responsible for the execution and costs of regulatory and commercial activities for tebipenem HBr in the United States, as well as territories outside of the United States (not including the Meiji Territory (as defined below)).

•

Selectively expand our portfolio of product candidates to develop therapies to address high unmet need in addressable patient populations, including those diagnosed with rare and infectious diseases. We are using our expertise to actively build and expand a portfolio of product candidates for the treatment of rare diseases and infections where unmet need exists. In addition, we are leveraging our deep-rooted relationships in the academic, medical and corporate communities to identify and develop new and innovative therapies in other tangential disease areas. Assessing our product candidates relies on three principles: 1) unmet medical need, 2) novel mechanism or formulation differentiation to overcome challenges with current therapeutics, and 3) convenience for patients.

•

Maximize the value of our pipeline through collaborations with other pharmaceutical companies. We may elect to pursue strategic collaborations with other pharmaceutical companies to leverage our pipeline. We believe it may be beneficial to develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates through partnering opportunities. Such collaborations may include regional collaborations to advance our pipeline products, or product-specific deals.

•

Continue to pursue collaborations with non-commercial organizations for scientific expertise and funding support. We have received funding support from BARDA, the United States National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (“NIAID”), the DoD and the Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria Biopharmaceutical Accelerator (“CARB-X”) a public-private partnership funded by BARDA within the United States Department of Health and Human Services. We intend to continue to pursue collaborations with government agencies and non-profit foundations, to the extent available and practicable, to support the development of our product candidates.

Collaboration, License and Service Agreements

In addition to our own patents and patent applications, we have acquired or licensed patents, patent applications and know-how from various third parties to access intellectual property covering product candidates that we are developing. We have certain obligations under these acquisitions or licensing agreements, including diligence obligations and payments, which are contingent upon achieving various development, regulatory and commercial milestones. Also, pursuant to the terms of some of these license agreements, when and if commercial sales of a product commence, we may be obligated to pay royalties to such third parties on net sales of the respective products. Some of our license agreements include sublicenses of rights owned by third-party head licensors. In addition, we have entered into license agreements (described below) pursuant to which we have granted certain development, manufacturing and commercialization rights with respect to certain of our product candidates.

Tebipenem HBr Agreements

On November 7, 2022, we closed the transactions contemplated by the GSK License Agreement, which was entered into on September 21, 2022. Pursuant to the terms of the GSK License Agreement, we granted GSK an exclusive royalty-bearing license, with the right to grant sublicenses, under our intellectual property and regulatory documents and a sublicense under certain intellectual property of Meiji and Meiji’s regulatory documents to develop, manufacture and commercialize tebipenem pivoxil and tebipenem HBr and products that contain tebipenem pivoxil and tebipenem HBr (the “GSK Licensed Products”) in all territories, except certain Asian countries previously licensed to Meiji (Japan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam (collectively, the “Meiji Territory”)) (the “GSK Territory”). If our license with Meiji is terminated, or if Meiji forfeits or loses its rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize tebipenem HBr and products that contain tebipenem HBr in any countries in the Meiji Territory, then GSK will have an exclusive first right to negotiate with us to add any such countries to the GSK Territory.

Under the terms of the GSK License Agreement, we received an upfront payment of $66.0 million for GSK to secure rights to the medicine, and GSK also invested $9.0 million in our common stock.

In July 2023, we received written agreement from the FDA, under a SPA, on the design and size of PIVOT-PO, a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of tebipenem HBr in patients with cUTI, including AP. Under the terms of the GSK License Agreement, we received a $30.0 million development milestone payment during the third quarter of 2023.

In December 2023, we commenced enrollment in PIVOT-PO with its first patient, first visit. Under the terms of the GSK License Agreement, we are entitled to receive a $95.0 million development milestone that is payable in four equal semiannual installments. We received the first installment payment of $23.8 million for such development milestone in February 2024, the second installment payment of $23.8 million in August 2024 and the third installment payment of $23.8 million in February 2025. The final installment payment of $23.8 million is expected to be received in the third quarter of 2025.

Remaining potential payments under the GSK License Agreement are milestone and royalty based, and are as follows (in millions):

Amendments to the GSK License Agreement

In July 2023, we entered into Amendment 1 to the GSK License Agreement, which updated the timeframe for technology transfer in the GSK License Agreement.

In December 2023, we entered into Amendment 2 to the GSK License Agreement, which added a country to the locations for PIVOT-PO enrollment. Under the terms of Amendment 2 we are entitled to an additional $4.3 million in milestones based on activities in such country. We received the first milestone payment of $1.2 million in August 2024 and received the second milestone payment of $1.3 million in October 2024. The third milestone of $0.7 million was achieved in December 2024 and payment was received in February 2025.

In March 2024, we entered into Amendment 3 to the GSK License Agreement, which assigns our rights to Product Trademarks (as defined in Amendment 3) to GSK.

In October 2024, we entered into Amendment 4 to the GSK License Agreement, under which we will receive an additional $0.8 million upon completion of activities related to an additional Phase 1 clinical study. We received $0.4 million of the milestone in January 2025 and anticipate receipt of the outstanding balance in the second quarter of 2025.

Royalties are subject to reduction in the event of third-party licenses, entry of a generic product or expiration of patent and regulatory exclusivity prior to the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of a GSK Licensed Product in a particular country.

We are responsible for the execution and costs of the Phase 3 clinical trial of tebipenem HBr. GSK is responsible for the execution and costs of any additional further development, including additional Phase 3 trials, regulatory filings and commercialization activities for tebipenem HBr in the GSK Territory. We will also be responsible for providing and paying for the clinical supply of tebipenem HBr while GSK will be responsible for the costs of the commercial supply of tebipenem HBr. A joint development committee has been established between GSK and us to coordinate and review development activities for tebipenem HBr in the United States.

Unless earlier terminated due to certain material breaches of the GSK License Agreement or by GSK for convenience, or otherwise, the GSK License Agreement will expire on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction and GSK Licensed Product-by-GSK Licensed Product basis on the latest to occur of (i) loss of patent exclusivity, (ii) loss of regulatory exclusivity or (iii) ten years following the date of the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country (the “GSK Royalty Term”). During the GSK Royalty Term, we have agreed not to develop, manufacture or commercialize any oral carbapenem for any indication or any oral antibiotic for cUTI; this restriction does not apply to any third party which acquires control of us after the date of the GSK License Agreement if certain conditions are met.

We have the right to terminate the GSK License Agreement upon a material breach by, or bankruptcy of, GSK. GSK has the right to terminate the GSK License Agreement at any time upon a specified number of days’ notice or upon a material breach by, or bankruptcy of, us. In addition, in the event that GSK has the right to terminate the GSK License Agreement due to a material breach by us, GSK may elect not to terminate the GSK License Agreement and in lieu thereof may assume the responsibility and expense of development of tebipenem HBr in the United States, in which event GSK’s obligation to make further development payments to us

(including unpaid installments of any earned milestone payments) would cease, and/or to reduce all subsequent commercial and sales milestone payments and royalty payments otherwise due by GSK to us under the GSK License Agreement by 50%. In the case of a Change of Control of Spero, GSK similarly may, in lieu of terminating the GSK License Agreement, assume responsibility and expense of development of tebipenem HBr in the United States and no development milestones would be payable to Spero, as described above.

The GSK License Agreement contains representations and warranties, other covenants, indemnification provisions and other terms and conditions customary for transactions of the type contemplated by the GSK License Agreement. In support of certain of its rights to indemnification, GSK also has certain rights to suspend payments otherwise owed to us, as well as the right to offset payments otherwise owed to the Company against certain indemnifiable claims.

Meiji Agreements

To support our development of tebipenem HBr, in June 2017 we entered into an exclusive License Agreement with Meiji (the “Meiji License”). Pursuant to the Meiji License, we obtained know-how, data and regulatory documents that have supported the development of tebipenem HBr and which we believe will help support the regulatory approval of tebipenem HBr.

We and our collaboration partners, including GSK, retain exclusive rights to commercialize tebipenem HBr throughout the world, except in the Meiji Territory, where Meiji will have exclusive rights to commercialize tebipenem HBr. With Meiji, we have established a joint development committee for the management of the development of tebipenem HBr, including any joint, cross-territory studies that may be undertaken by the parties, if any. In addition, the parties have established a joint commercialization committee to coordinate information sharing relative to the commercialization of tebipenem HBr.

Meiji and we have granted each other exclusive cross-licenses to our respective tebipenem intellectual property, including know-how and regulatory documentation. The license granted to us by Meiji includes certain know-how that Meiji received from a global pharmaceutical company, to which we refer as Global Pharma, as described below. As such, our rights to the Global Pharma know-how component are non-exclusive.

Under the Meiji License, we have paid Meiji a one-time non-refundable upfront fee of $0.6 million, a $1.0 million milestone payment to Meiji upon the enrollment of the first patient in our Phase 1 clinical trial of tebipenem HBr in October 2017 and a $1.0 million milestone payment upon submission of the NDA for tebipenem HBr in October 2021. We are obligated to pay Meiji future clinical and regulatory milestone payments up to an aggregate of $1.0 million and royalties of a low single-digit percentage based on net sales of tebipenem HBr. Additionally, we were obligated to pay Meiji a percentage of certain amounts received from any sublicensees, up to an aggregate of $7.5 million; which we fully satisfied in the fourth quarter of 2023. We recorded these amounts as research and development expenses in our consolidated statement of operations.

Some of the know-how that we received under the Meiji License to support tebipenem HBr development was originally obtained by Meiji through a license from Global Pharma, which we refer to as the head license. Prior to entering into the Meiji License with us, Meiji received written approval from Global Pharma permitting Meiji to enter into the Meiji License with us. Specifically, in a letter agreement between Global Pharma and Meiji entered into in January 2017, Global Pharma consented to Meiji assisting us with the transfer or license of the Global Pharma know-how and Meiji know-how on a non-exclusive basis outside of those Asian countries identified above, as well as certain related matters. This letter agreement did not contemplate us having any right to sublicense the Global Pharma know-how. Prior to our entering into the GSK License Agreement, in February 2022, Meiji received written approval from Global Pharma permitting Meiji to provide us the right to sublicense the Global Pharma know-how.

The Meiji License continues in effect until the expiration of all payment obligations thereunder (including royalty payments and licensee revenue) on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, unless earlier terminated by the parties. Pursuant to the terms of the Meiji License, in addition to each party’s right to terminate the agreement upon the other party’s material breach (if not cured within a specified period after receipt of notice) or insolvency, we also have unilateral termination rights (i) in the event that we abandon the development and commercialization of tebipenem HBr for efficacy, safety, legal or business factors, and (ii) under certain circumstances arising out of the head license with Global Pharma.

SPR206 Agreements

Cantab Agreements

In June 2016, we entered into a stock purchase agreement (the “Cantab Agreement”) with Pro Bono Bio PLC, a corporation organized under the laws of England, and its affiliates, including PBB Distributions Limited (“PBB”), Cantab Anti-Infectives Ltd. (“CAI”) and New Pharma License Holdings Limited (“NPLH”). This agreement allows us to acquire NPLH and its intellectual property rights and assets relating to our polymyxin products, and our next-generation potentiating agents in particular. The intellectual property portfolio we acquired includes patents that cover SPR206 as well as other novel potentiating agents, polymyxin derivatives and other LPS or outer-membrane bacterial disrupting agents. In exchange for the acquisition of NPLH, we paid PBB upfront consideration in the amount of $0.3 million and also agreed to make milestone payments of up to $5.8 million upon the achievement of specified clinical and regulatory milestones and a payment of £5.0 million ($6.3 million as of December 31, 2024) upon the achievement of a specified commercial milestone. We also agreed to pay royalties of a low single-digit percentage based on net sales of products licensed under the agreement. In addition, Spero Cantab issued equity interest in Spero Cantab and entered into a subscription agreement and stockholders agreement with PBB. In July 2017, we repurchased PBB’s minority equity interest in Spero

Cantab in exchange for a one-time non-refundable upfront fee of approximately $0.2 million and we also amended the Cantab Agreement to increase the contingent milestone payments to PBB by an aggregate of $0.1 million. The Cantab Agreement continues indefinitely, with royalty payment obligations thereunder continuing on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until the later of ten years after the first commercial sale of such product in such country or the expiration in such country of the last to expire valid claim of any of the applicable patents.

Everest Medicines License Agreement

On January 4, 2019, we, through NPLH, entered into a license agreement (the “Original Everest License Agreement”) with Everest, which Original Everest License Agreement also included an option granted by our wholly-owned subsidiary, Spero Potentiator, Inc., a Delaware corporation. Under the terms of the Original Everest License Agreement, we granted Everest an exclusive license to develop, manufacture and commercialize SPR206 or products that contain SPR206 (“Everest Licensed Products”) in Greater China (which includes Mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau), South Korea and certain Southeast Asian countries, collectively referred to as the “Everest Territory.” We retained development, manufacturing and commercialization rights with respect to SPR206 and Everest Licensed Products in the rest of the world and also retained the right to develop or manufacture SPR206 and Everest Licensed Products in the Everest Territory for use outside the Everest Territory. In addition to the license grant to SPR206, we granted Everest a 12-month exclusive option to negotiate with us for an exclusive license to develop, manufacture and commercialize SPR741 in the Everest Territory. For the reasons discussed above, following an evaluation of the potentiator product candidates, we discontinued the development of SPR741, effective January 1, 2020, and decided to move forward with SPR206 as our lead potentiator product candidate. In addition, on October 29, 2019, Everest notified us that it did not intend to exercise its option with respect to SPR741 under the Original Everest License Agreement. Accordingly, effective January 1, 2020, we no longer have any intellectual property rights with respect to SPR741 and we no longer have any obligations for the cost of maintaining such intellectual property.

Under the terms of the Original Everest License Agreement, we received an upfront payment of $3.0 million. We also received a milestone payment of $2.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2020 upon completion and delivery of the results of a clinical study.

On January 15, 2021, we entered into an amended and restated license agreement (the “Amended Everest License Agreement”) with Everest and Spero Potentiator, Inc., which amended and restated in its entirety the Original Everest License Agreement. The Amended Everest License Agreement modifies the dates and values of certain milestone events related to development and commercialization of SPR206. Everest will now be making more significant investments in the development of SPR206 beyond what was contemplated at the time of the Original Everest License Agreement. The Original Everest License Agreement provided that we could receive up to $59.5 million upon achievement of certain milestones. The Amended Everest License Agreement provides that we may receive up to $38.0 million upon achievement of certain milestones, of which $2.0 million has been received to date. In addition, under the Amended Everest License Agreement, we assigned patents in the Everest Territory to Everest, rather than licensing such patents to Everest, and the option related to SPR741 and the related provisions have been removed. Under the terms of the Amended Everest License Agreement, we are also entitled to receive high single-digit to low double-digit royalties on net sales, if any, of Everest Licensed Products in the Everest Territory following regulatory approval of SPR206. Everest has the right to sublicense to affiliates and third parties in the Everest Territory.

Everest is responsible for all costs related to developing, obtaining regulatory approval of and commercializing SPR206 and Everest Licensed Products in the Everest Territory, and is obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, manufacture and commercialize Everest Licensed Products, including to achieve certain specified diligence milestones within agreed-upon periods. A joint development committee has been established between us and Everest to coordinate and review the development, manufacturing and commercialization plans with respect to Everest Licensed Products in the Everest Territory.

Unless earlier terminated due to certain material breaches of the contract, or otherwise, the Amended Everest License Agreement will expire on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction and Everest Licensed Product-by-Everest Licensed Product basis upon the latest to occur of expiration of the last valid claim under a licensed patent in such jurisdiction, the expiration of regulatory exclusivity in such jurisdiction or ten years after the first commercial sale of such Everest Licensed Product in such jurisdiction. The Amended Everest License Agreement may be terminated in its entirety by Everest upon 90 or 180 days prior written notice, depending on the stage of development of the initial Everest Licensed Product.

Pfizer License and Share Purchase Agreements

On June 30, 2021, we entered into a License Agreement (the “Pfizer License Agreement”) and a Share Purchase Agreement (the “Pfizer Purchase Agreement”) with Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”). Under the terms of the Pfizer License Agreement, we granted Pfizer an exclusive royalty-bearing license to develop, manufacture and commercialize SPR206 or products that contain SPR206 (the “Pfizer Licensed Products”) globally with some territorial exceptions (the “Pfizer Territory”). The Pfizer Territory excludes the United States and the Asian markets previously licensed to Everest in the Everest Territory.

In connection with the Pfizer Purchase Agreement, Pfizer purchased 2,362,348 shares of our common stock at a price of $16.93 per share for a total investment of $40.0 million. Under the terms of the Pfizer License Agreement, we received no other upfront payments but are eligible to receive up to $80.0 million in development and sales milestones, and we may also receive high single-digit to low double-digit royalties on net sales of SPR206 in the Pfizer Territory. Achievement of these payments cannot be guaranteed. We and Pfizer agree that upon Pfizer’s request, the parties will negotiate in good faith regarding procuring a clinical or commercial supply of the compound.

In September 2022, we received a $5.0 million payment from Pfizer in connection with the achievement of a regulatory milestone specified in the Pfizer License Agreement.

We are responsible for all costs related to developing and obtaining regulatory approval of SPR206 and Pfizer Licensed Products in the Pfizer Territory, with a focus on the European market, and are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts, including to achieve certain specified diligence milestones within agreed-upon periods. A joint development committee was established between Pfizer and us to coordinate and review the development, manufacturing and commercialization plans with respect to Pfizer Licensed Products in the Pfizer Territory. Pfizer is responsible for commercializing SPR206 and the Licensed Products in the Pfizer Territory.

Unless earlier terminated due to certain material breaches of the contract or by Pfizer’s convenience, or otherwise, the Pfizer License Agreement will expire on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction and licensed product-by-licensed product basis after ten years from the effective date. The Pfizer License Agreement will automatically renew for an additional ten-year term unless terminated.

SPR720 Agreements

Vertex Assignment and License Agreement

In May 2016, we entered into an agreement with Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated (“Vertex”) pursuant to which Vertex assigned to us rights to patents relating to the oral prodrug SPR720 and SPR719 (an active metabolite). The acquired patent portfolio includes protection for composition of matter, method of use, and specific key intermediates used in the manufacture of SPR719 and SPR720. We also obtained certain know-how and a license to research, develop, manufacture and sell products for a proprietary compound, as well as a transfer of materials as part of the transaction. In return, we granted Vertex an exclusive license to the assigned patents and know-how for use outside of the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of bacterial infections. In exchange for the assigned patents, we paid Vertex an upfront, one-time, non-refundable, non-creditable fee of $0.5 million, which was recognized as research and development expense, and we also agreed to pay Vertex future clinical, regulatory and commercial milestones up to $81.3 million in the aggregate and a royalty on the net sales of licensed products ranging from mid-single digits to low double digits. During the year ended December 31, 2020, we paid and recorded $0.9 million in expenses related to the achievement of regulatory milestones for SPR720.

The agreement continues in effect until the expiration of all payment obligations thereunder, with royalty payment obligations continuing on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until the later of ten years after the first commercial sale of such product in such country or the date of expiration in such country of the last to expire applicable patent. Further, Vertex has the right to terminate the agreement if provided with notification from us of our intent to cease all development or if no material development or commercialization efforts occur for a period of one year.

Government Awards

Through December 31, 2024, we have committed funding support of up to an aggregate of $85.4 million in non-dilutive funding from BARDA, NIAID and concluded awards from CARB-X, SBIR and the DoD, with the potential to receive a total of up to $114.6 million (inclusive of amounts we have already received) if certain options are exercised. The awards are subject to termination for convenience at any time by the granting government agency, and the granting government agency is not obligated to provide funding to us beyond the base period amounts from Congressionally approved annual appropriations. These awards are structured in the following manner:

•

BARDA award to support the further clinical development of tebipenem HBr. The BARDA award provides total reimbursement to us of up to $72.0 million for qualified expenses for tebipenem HBr development. The award initially committed funding of $15.7 million over a three-year base period from July 2018 to June 30, 2021 for cUTI development activities. In May 2019, the contract was modified to include additional funding of approximately $2.5 million for tebipenem HBr, increasing the amount of initial committed funding from $15.7 million to approximately $18.2 million. In January 2020, BARDA exercised its first option under the contract, committing $15.9 million for tebipenem HBr. In December 2023, BARDA extended the period of performance for the first contract option through December 31, 2025 and the contract was modified to include additional funding of $0.6 million for tebipenem HBr, increasing the amount of the first contract option to $16.5 million.

There is a second option exercisable by BARDA for $12.7 million of funding, subject to the achievement of specified milestones under the award agreement and program direction. In January 2022, BARDA added, and exercised, a third option to the original award, increasing the total amount of committed funding by $12.9 million. In September 2022, remaining funding from the $12.9 million option was reprogrammed into a fourth contract option to support clinical trials for patients with cUTI, including AP. In July 2024, an additional contract modification of $11.7 million was executed under our existing contract with BARDA.

As of December 31, 2024 the total amount of committed funding under the BARDA award was $59.3 million of which the Company has cumulatively recognized $56.7 million in grant revenue.

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (“DTRA”) may provide up to $10.0 million in addition to the total potential $72.0 million from BARDA, to cover the cost of the nonclinical biodefense aspects of the collaboration program. While such funding would be for the purpose of developing tebipenem HBr in these areas, we will not receive any funds directly from DTRA.

•

NIAID funding for SPR206. In May 2021, a NIAID contract was awarded for SPR206 providing total development funding of up to $23.4 million, of which $7.1 million has been committed. The award initially committed funding of $2.1 million over a two-year base period from May 2021 to January 2023 for nonclinical, regulatory, and CMC activities. In December 2022, NIAID extended period of performance for the base period until August 16, 2023. In December 2022, the contract was modified to include additional funding of approximately $0.1 million, increasing the amount of base period committed funding to $2.2 million. In October 2022, NIAID exercised its first option under the contract, committing $4.0 million for SPR206 through April 2025. In June 2023, NIAID extended the period of performance for the base period until January 16, 2024 and in August 2023, the contract was modified to include additional funding of approximately $0.1 million increasing the amount of base period committed funding to $2.3 million. In August 2023, NIAID exercised its third option under the contract, committing $0.8 million for SPR206 through August 2024. In December 2023, the period of performance for the base period was extended through September 16, 2024. In August 2024, an additional contract modification of $3.4 million was executed under Option 1 of our existing contract with NIAID for SPR206 Phase 2 start up activities.

As of December 31, 2024, the total amount of committed funding under the NIAID award was $10.5 million and the total potential contract value was $27.0 million. Of the committed funding, the Company has cumulatively recognized $5.3 million in grant revenue.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect the proprietary technology that we believe is important to our business, including seeking and maintaining patents intended to cover our product candidates and compositions, their methods of use and processes for their manufacture and any other inventions that are commercially important to the development of our business. We also rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection.

Our success will significantly depend on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important technology and inventions and know-how related to our business, defend and enforce our patents, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets and operate without infringing the valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. We also rely on the know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

Spero-Owned Intellectual Property Relating to Compounds Under Development

We have patent applications directed to the composition of matter, formulation and/or use of tebipenem HBr, SPR720 and SPR206 pending in the United States, Europe, Japan and other countries.

Tebipenem HBr Oral Carbapenem (Tebipenem Pivoxil Hydrobromide)

Our tebipenem HBr program contains one issued and three pending United States patent applications, and 40 issued and 30 pending foreign patent applications covering novel solid forms of tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide and novel pharmaceutical formulations of tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide as of December 31, 2024, all wholly owned by us. The issued foreign patents are issued in Australia, Brazil, Canada, the Eurasian Patent Office (“EAPO”), which includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, and South Africa. Foreign patent applications are pending in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, the European Patent Office, Egypt, Indonesia, Israel, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. U.S. and foreign patents covering our tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide preparations will have statutory expiration dates of December 2037, February 2038, and November 2041. Patent term adjustments or patent term extensions could result in later expiration dates.

In January 2021, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No, 10,889,587, which is directed to the crystalline formulation of tebipenem HBr, our oral carbapenem in development for the treatment of cUTI and AP. This patent covers a crystalline form of tebipenem pivoxil HBr, pharmaceutical compositions of tebipenem pivoxil HBr and methods of use. The patent expires in February 2038.

NTM Pulmonary Disease Program (SPR720)

Our intellectual property portfolio for our DNA Gyrase Inhibitor program includes issued patents and a pending patent application directed to composition of matter for SPR720, a prodrug of SPR719. The SPR719 and SPR720 patents include patents to close analogs, novel solid forms, methods of manufacture for both compounds, and methods of treatment using SPR720 alone and in combination with other antibiotic compounds. All patents and patent applications in the portfolio are wholly owned by us. As of December 31, 2024, we owned 11 issued U.S. patents, 98 issued foreign patents, and one pending U.S. application and 8 pending foreign patent applications. The issued foreign patents are in a number of jurisdictions including the European Union and its member states, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Israel, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, and Taiwan. Issued U.S. and foreign patents, and patents issuing from the pending PCT application, will have statutory expiration dates of January 2032, June 2032, July 2033 and October 2042. Patent term adjustments or patent term extensions could result in later expiration dates.

Next-Generation Potentiator Product (SPR206)

The intellectual property portfolio for our next-generation polymyxin program contains patent applications and issued patents directed to a composition of matter for polymyxin-like compounds with different structural features, pharmaceutical compositions comprising the same, and methods of use for these novel compounds and compositions. As of December 31, 2024, we owned four U.S. patents and three pending U.S. patent applications, 138 foreign patents, and 21 pending foreign patent applications in a number of jurisdictions including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, the European Patent Office, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Taiwan, Ukraine and Venezuela. Issued U.S. or foreign patents and any patents issued from pending U.S. or foreign applications covering our next-generation polymyxin program will have a statutory expiration date of May 2034, March 2035, November 2035 or June 2039. Patent term adjustments or patent term extensions could result in later expiration dates.

In October 2022, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. 11,459,357, which covers the SPR206 composition of matter and formulations thereof, as well as methods of treating a bacterial infection with SPR206. The patent is assigned to us and has a lifespan extending into at least June 2039.

In 2019, we entered into an agreement with Everest, by which Everest would develop, manufacture, and commercialize SPR206 in China, South Korea, and certain Southeast Asian countries. Our agreement with Everest has since been amended to include an obligation by us to assign its SPR206 patent rights to Everest in these countries and assignments to Everest have now been executed.

Patent Term and Patent Term Extensions

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest filing date of a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier-filed patent. The term of a patent that covers a drug, biological product or medical device approved pursuant to a pre-market approval may also be eligible for patent term extension when FDA approval is granted, provided statutory and regulatory requirements are met. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review while the patent is in force. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration date set for the patent. Patent extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent applicable to each regulatory review period may be granted an extension and only those claims reading on the approved drug are extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug.

Russian and Eurasian Patent Office and Ukrainian Patents

Due to the war in Ukraine and sanctions between the United States and Russia, patents and patent applications in Russia, the EAPO and Ukraine currently have an uncertain fate. Further, the Kremlin has stated it will no longer enforce patents held by businesses in “unfriendly” countries, in effect giving a royalty free license to all patents and patent applications filed by United States entities in Russia. Until the conflict with Ukraine ends, our Russian and EAPO patents will not be enforced.

Trade Secrets

We rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our unpatented technology. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our trade secrets and proprietary technology and processes, in part, by confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining the physical security of our premises and the 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. We may not have adequate remedies for any breach and could lose our trade secrets through such a breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our consultants, contractors, or collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting trade secrets, know-how, and inventions.

Competition

The biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Our potential competitors include large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, and generic drug companies. Many of our potential competitors have greater financial, technical, and human resources than we do, as well as greater experience in the discovery and development of product candidates, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of products, and the commercialization of those products. Accordingly, our potential competitors may be more successful than us in obtaining FDA approval of drugs and achieving widespread market acceptance. We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition as new drugs enter the market and advanced technologies become available. Finally, the development of new treatment methods for the diseases we are targeting could render our product candidates non-competitive or obsolete.

We believe the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of our partnered product candidate, tebipenem HBr, if approved, will be efficacy, coverage of drug-resistant strains of bacteria, safety, and tolerability profile, reliability, the convenience of oral dosing, price, availability of reimbursement from governmental and other third-party payers and susceptibility to drug resistance.

In partnership with GSK, we are developing tebipenem HBr as an oral antibiotic for use as a monotherapy for the treatment of resistant and MDR infections. If approved, there are a variety of available oral therapies for the treatment of cUTIs that we expect would compete with tebipenem HBr, such as levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and several antibiotics currently in clinical development for cUTI. We also expect that tebipenem HBr, if approved, would compete with future and current generic versions of marketed antibiotics. If approved, we believe that tebipenem HBr would compete effectively against these compounds on the basis of tebipenem HBr’s potential:

•

broad range of activity against a wide variety of resistant and MDR Gram-negative bacteria;

•

low probability of drug resistance;

•

a favorable safety and tolerability profile supported by years of post-marketing experience in Japan;

•

oral dosing regimen and opportunity to step-down from IV-administered therapy; and

•

as a monotherapy treatment for MDR Gram-negative infections.

SPR206 is designed as a treatment for high-risk patients with suspected or known Gram-negative infections, such as CRE, CRAB and MDR PA to prevent mortality and reduce the length of stay in the hospital setting. If approved, SPR206 would compete with several IV-administered products marketed for the treatment of Gram-negative infections, including ceftazidime-avibactam (Avycaz) from Allergan plc and Pfizer Inc., ceftolozane-tazobactam (Zerbaxa) from Merck & Co., plazomicin (Zemdri) from Cipla Therapeutics, Inc., eravacycline (Xerava) from Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., meropenem-vaborbactam (Vabomere) from Melinta Therapeutics, Inc, cefiderocol (Fetroja) from Shionogi & Co. Ltd., imipenem-relebactam (Recarbrio) from Merck & Co, and sulbactam/durlobactam (Xacduro) from Innoviva Specialty Therapeutic. Each of these products and product candidates employs a mechanism of action that differs from the mechanism of action employed by SPR206.

We have been developing SPR720 as a treatment for NTM pulmonary disease. There are currently no agents approved to treat non-refractory NTM pulmonary disease. Only one drug is currently approved to treat NTM infection that would potentially compete with SPR720, called Arikayce from Insmed, an inhaled version of a commonly used drug in the hospital setting called amikacin. It should be noted that combination therapy is recommended for treating this condition. There are also a number of late-stage product candidates in clinical development by Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mannkind Corporation, AN2 Therapeutics, Inc. and Insmed, Inc. that are intended to treat refractory disease and first-line treatment of disease due to MAC or M. absesssus.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, clinical trials, testing, manufacture, including any manufacturing changes, authorization, pharmacovigilance, adverse event reporting, recalls, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, import and export of pharmaceutical products and product candidates such as those we are developing. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

United States Government Regulation

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state and local 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 NDAs, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil and/or criminal penalties.

The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

•

completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies in compliance with GLPs and other applicable regulations;

•

submission to the FDA of an IND which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;

•

approval by an independent institutional review board (“IRB”) before each trial may be initiated;

•

performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with good clinical practices (“GCPs”) to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug product for each indication;

•

submission to the FDA of an NDA and payment of user fees;

•

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

•

satisfactory completion of an FDA pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the product is produced to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practices (“cGMPs”) and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity;

•

satisfactory completion of audits of clinical trial sites conducted by FDA to assure compliance with GCPs and the integrity of clinical data; and

•

FDA review and approval of the NDA.

Preclinical Studies

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. Preclinical tests intended for submission to the FDA to support the safety of a product candidate must be conducted in compliance with GLP regulations and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Act. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, signed into law on December 29, 2022, (P.L. 117-328), amended the FDCA to specify that nonclinical testing for drugs may, but is not required to, includein vivo animal testing. According to the amended language, a sponsor may fulfill nonclinical testing requirements by completing variousin vitro assays (e.g., cell-based assays, organ chips, or microphysiological systems), in silico studies (i.e., computer modeling), other human or non-human biology-based tests (e.g., bioprinting), orin vivo animal tests.

A drug sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data and any available clinical data or literature, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. Some nonclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted and human clinical trials have begun. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence. A clinical hold may occur at any time during the life of an IND and may affect one or more specific studies or all studies conducted under the IND.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial along with the requirement to ensure that the data and results reported from the clinical trials are credible and accurate. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the criteria for determining subject eligibility, the dosing plan, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, the procedure for timely reporting of adverse events, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, an IRB must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution.

Information about certain clinical trials and clinical trial results must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) for public dissemination on the Clinicaltrials.gov registry. Failure to timely register a covered clinical study or to submit study results as provided for in the law can give rise to civil monetary penalties and also prevent the non-compliant party from receiving future grant funds from the federal government. The government has recently begun enforcing these registration and results reporting requirements against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined:

Phase 1: The drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, ADME and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness. During Phase 1 clinical trials, sufficient information about the investigational drug’s PK and pharmacological effects may be obtained to permit the design of well-controlled and scientifically valid Phase 2 clinical trials.

Phase 2: The drug is administered to a larger, but still limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted indications and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage. Phase 2 clinical trials are typically well-controlled and closely monitored.

Phase 3: The drug is administered to an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in well-controlled clinical trials to generate enough data to statistically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product, and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product. Phase 3 clinical trials usually involve a larger number of participants than a Phase 2 clinical trial.

Congress recently amended the FDCA to require sponsors of a Phase 3 clinical trial, or other “pivotal study” of a new drug to support marketing authorization, and to design and submit a diversity action plan for such clinical trial. The action plan must include the sponsor’s diversity goals for enrollment, as well as a rationale for the goals and a description of how the sponsor will meet them. Sponsors must submit a diversity action plan to the FDA by the time the sponsor submits the relevant clinical trial protocol to the FDA for review. The FDA may grant a waiver for some or all of the requirements for a diversity action plan. If the FDA objects to a sponsor’s diversity action plan or otherwise requires significant changes to be made, it could delay initiation of the relevant clinical trial.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as “Phase 4” clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials.

Interactions with FDA During the Clinical Development Program

Following the clearance of an IND and the commencement of clinical trials, the sponsor will continue to have interactions with the FDA. Progress reports detailing the results of clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious AEs occur. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or potentially animal studies to assess toxicity or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the product; and any clinically important increase in the occurrence of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. Results from one trial may not be predictive of results from subsequent trials. Furthermore, the FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial 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.

In addition, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points in the clinical development program. Specifically, sponsors may meet with the FDA prior to the submission of an IND (pre-IND meeting), at the end of Phase 2 clinical trial (EOP2 meeting) and before an NDA is submitted (pre-NDA meeting). Meetings at other times may also be requested. There are six types of meetings that occur between sponsors and the FDA. Type A meetings are those that are necessary for an otherwise stalled product development program to proceed or to address an important safety issue. Type B meetings include pre-IND and pre-NDA meetings, as well as end of phase meetings such as EOP2 meetings. A Type C meeting is any meeting other than a Type A or Type B meeting regarding the development and review of a product, including, for example, meetings to facilitate early consultations on the use of a biomarker as a new surrogate endpoint that has never been previously used as the primary basis for product approval in the proposed context of use. Type D meetings are focused on a narrow set of issues that may be critical to move a program forward, while so-called “INTERACT” meetings are intended for novel products and development programs that present unique challenges in early development.

These meetings provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date with the FDA and for the FDA to provide advice on the next phase of development. For example, at an EOP2, a sponsor may discuss its Phase 2 clinical results and present its plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) that it believes will support the approval of the new product. Such meetings may be conducted in person face-to-face, virtual face-to-face (video conference), or written response only with minutes reflecting the questions that the sponsor posed to the FDA and the agency’s responses. The FDA has indicated that its responses, as conveyed in meeting minutes and advice letters, only constitute mere recommendations and/or advice made to a sponsor and, as such, sponsors are not bound by such recommendations and/or advice. Nonetheless, from a practical perspective, a sponsor’s failure to follow the FDA’s recommendations for design of a clinical program may put the program at significant risk of failure.

Acceptance of NDAs

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the nonclinical studies and clinical trials, along with information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, safety updates, patent information, abuse information and proposed labeling, are submitted to the FDA as part of an application requesting approval to market the product candidate for one or more indications. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of a drug product. The fee required for the submission and review of an application under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (the “PDUFA”), is substantial (for example, for fiscal year 2025 this application fee is over $4.3 million), and the sponsor of an approved application is also subject to an annual program fee, currently more than $404,000 per eligible prescription product. These fees are typically adjusted annually, and exemptions and waivers may be available under certain circumstances, such as where a waiver is necessary to protect the public health, where the fee would present a significant barrier to innovation, or where the applicant is a small business submitting its first human therapeutic application for review. Congress is required to reauthorize the agency’s user fee programs every five years, and current legislative provisions supporting the PDUFA program are set to expire on September 30, 2027.

The application review process begins upon receipt of the application. The PDUFA time clock begins on the FDA receipt date except for eligible products (i.e., new molecular entity (“NME”) NDAs and original biologics license applications (“BLAs”)). For these applications, the PDUFA time clock begins 60 days after the application receipt date if the application is filed; however, the review timeline for all applications begins on the day of submission. The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all applications within 60 days of receipt and must inform the sponsor at that time or before whether an application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. In pertinent part, the FDA’s regulations state that an application “shall not be considered as filed until all pertinent information and data have been received” by the FDA. In the event that FDA determines that an application does not satisfy this standard, it will issue a Refuse to File (“RTF”) determination to the applicant. Typically, an RTF will be based on administrative incompleteness, such as clear omission of information or sections of required information; scientific incompleteness, such as omission of critical data, information or analyses needed to evaluate safety and efficacy or provide adequate directions for use; or inadequate content, presentation, or organization of information such that substantive and meaningful review is precluded. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an application for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing.

Review of NDAs

After the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the application. The FDA reviews the application to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use, whether it has an acceptable purity profile and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP.

Under the current PDUFA goals and policies agreed to by the FDA, the agency has ten months from the filing date in which to complete its initial review of a standard application that is a NME, and six months from the filing date for an NME application with “priority review”. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or in the case of a clarification provided by the applicant to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission. Despite these review goals, it is not uncommon for FDA review of an application to extend beyond the PDUFA target action date.

In connection with its review of an application, the FDA will typically submit information requests to the applicant and set deadlines for responses thereto. The FDA will also conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether the manufacturing processes and facilities comply with cGMPs. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and are adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications.

The FDA also may inspect the sponsor and one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with IND and GCP requirements and the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA. To ensure cGMP and GCP compliance by its employees and third-party contractors, an applicant may incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production and quality control. The FDA generally accepts data from foreign clinical trials in support of an NDA if the trials were conducted under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the FDA nevertheless may accept the data in support of an NDA if the study was conducted in accordance with GCPs and the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection, if deemed necessary. Although the FDA generally requests that marketing applications be supported by some data from domestic clinical trials, the FDA may accept foreign data as the sole basis for marketing approval if (1) the foreign data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice, (2) the studies were performed by clinical investigators with recognized competence, and (3) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection or, if the FDA considers the inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means.

Additionally, the FDA may refer an application, including applications for novel product candidates which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making final decisions on approval.

Data from clinical trials are not always conclusive, and the FDA or its advisory committee may interpret data differently than the sponsor interprets the same data. The FDA may also re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process or delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. The FDA may not grant approval on a timely basis, or at all.

The FDA also may require submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) if it determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh its risks and to assure the safe use of the product. The REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk minimization tools. The FDA determines the requirement for a REMS, as well as the specific REMS provisions, on a case-by-case basis. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the application must submit a proposed REMS and the FDA will not approve the application without a REMS.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, as amended and reauthorized, certain NDAs or supplements to an NDA must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug 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. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation.

Decisions on NDAs

The FDA reviews an application to determine, among other things, whether the product is safe and whether it is effective for its intended use(s), with the latter determination being made on the basis of substantial evidence. The term “substantial evidence” is defined under the FDCA as “evidence consisting of adequate and well-controlled investigations, including clinical investigations, by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the effectiveness of the product involved, on the basis of which it could fairly and responsibly be concluded by such experts that the product will have the effect it purports or is represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling or proposed labeling thereof.”

The FDA has interpreted this evidentiary standard to require at least two adequate and well-controlled clinical investigations to establish effectiveness of a new product. Under certain circumstances, however, the FDA has indicated that a single trial with certain characteristics and additional information may satisfy this standard. This approach was subsequently endorsed by Congress in 1998 with legislation providing, in pertinent part, that “If [FDA] determines, based on relevant science, that data from one adequate and well-controlled clinical investigation and confirmatory evidence (obtained prior to or after such investigation) are sufficient to establish effectiveness, the FDA may consider such data and evidence to constitute substantial evidence.” This modification to the law recognized the potential for the FDA to find that one adequate and well controlled clinical investigation with confirmatory evidence, including supportive data outside of a controlled trial, is sufficient to establish effectiveness. In December 2019, the FDA issued draft guidance further explaining the studies that are needed to establish substantial evidence of effectiveness. It subsequently issued a complementary draft guidance on demonstrating substantial evidence of effectiveness based on one adequate and well-controlled clinical investigation plus confirmatory evidence in September 2023. Although neither has been finalized to date, together these two FDA guidance documents provide additional information for industry on the flexibility in the amount and type of evidence needed to establish the effectiveness of new drug products.

After evaluating the application and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendations, if any, and inspection reports of manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA will issue either a CRL or an approval letter. To reach this determination, the FDA must determine that the drug is effective and that its expected benefits outweigh its potential risks to patients. This “benefit-risk” assessment is informed by the extensive body of evidence about the product’s safety and efficacy in the NDA. This assessment is also informed by other factors, including: the severity of the underlying condition and how well patients’ medical needs are addressed by currently available therapies; uncertainty about how the premarket clinical trial evidence will extrapolate to real-world use of the product in the post-market setting; and whether risk management tools are necessary to manage specific risks. In connection with this assessment, the FDA review team will assemble all individual reviews and other documents into an “action package,” which becomes the record for FDA review. The review team then issues a recommendation, and a senior FDA official makes a decision.

A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A CRL generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. The CRL may require additional clinical or other data, additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) and/or other significant and time- consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a CRL is issued, the applicant will have one year to respond to the deficiencies identified by the FDA, at which time the FDA can deem the application withdrawn or, in its discretion, grant the applicant an extension to respond and resubmit. The FDA has committed to reviewing resubmissions in response to an issued CRL in either two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with the submission of this additional information, however, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. The FDA has taken the position that a CRL is not final agency action making the determination subject to judicial review.

An approval letter, on the other hand, authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. That is, the approval will be limited to the conditions of use (e.g., patient population, indication) described in the FDA-approved labeling. Further, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed, the FDA may require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval trials, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a product’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing trials or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Under the Ensuring Innovation Act, which was signed into law in April 2021, the FDA must publish action packages summarizing its decisions to approve new drugs within 30 days of approval of such products. To date, CRLs are not publicly available documents.

FDA Expedited Review Programs

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited development or review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs include fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, QIDP designation, and priority review designation. The purpose of these programs is to make important new drugs available to patients earlier than under standard FDA review procedures.

To be eligible for a fast-track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need, or if the drug qualifies as a QIDP under the GAIN Act. The FDA will determine that a product will fill an unmet medical need if it will provide a therapy where none exists or provide a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. Fast track designation provides additional opportunities for interaction with the FDA’s review team and may allow for a rolling review of NDA components before the completed application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA. In addition, fast track designation may be withdrawn by the sponsor or rescinded by the FDA if the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process. Tebipenem HBr has been granted fast track designation by the FDA for the treatment of cUTI, including pyelonephritis, caused by certain microorganisms in adult patients who have limited oral treatment options. In September 2020, SPR720 received fast track designation for treatment of adult patients with NTM pulmonary disease.

In addition, with the enactment of the FDA Safety and Innovation Act (“FDASIA”) in 2012, Congress created a regulatory program for therapeutic candidates designated by FDA as “breakthrough therapies” upon a request made by the IND sponsors. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA must take certain actions with respect to breakthrough therapies, such as holding timely meetings with and providing advice to the product sponsor, intended to expedite the development and review of an application for approval of a breakthrough therapy.

FDASIA also included the Generating Antibiotics Incentives Now Act (the “GAIN Act”) which directed the FDA to implement the QIDP designation program. The GAIN Act created incentives for the development of antibacterial and antifungal drug products for the treatment of serious or life-threatening infections. A therapeutic candidate designated as a QIDP is eligible for fast track designation, and the first marketing application submitted for a specific drug product and indication for which QIDP designation was granted will be granted priority review. A subsequent application from the same sponsor for the same product and indication will receive priority review designation only if it otherwise meets the criteria for priority review. As discussed further below under “Qualified Infectious Disease Product Exclusivity,” the GAIN Act also provides the possibility of a five-year exclusivity extension that is added to any other marketing exclusivity for which a QIDP-designated drug qualifies upon FDA approval.

Finally, the FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a drug that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines at the time that the marketing application is submitted, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed drug represents a significant improvement in treatment, prevention or diagnosis of disease when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting drug reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, or evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority review designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months for an NDA, for an NME (or an original BLA) from the date of filing.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Furthermore, fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation and priority review do not change the standards for approval and may not ultimately expedite the development or approval process.

Accelerated Approval Pathway

In addition, a product studied for its safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval, meaning that it may be approved on (i) the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the drug product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or (ii) on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality (“IMM”) and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefits, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval to perform post-marketing studies to verify and describe the predicted effect on IMM or other clinical endpoints, and the drug may be subject to expedited withdrawal procedures. Drugs granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval.

The accelerated approval pathway is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. As a result, a therapeutic 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. In addition, Congress recently provided FDA additional statutory authority to mitigate potential risks to patients from continued marketing of ineffective drugs previously granted accelerated approval. Under these recent amendments to the FDCA, the agency may require a sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to have a confirmatory trial underway prior to approval. The sponsor must also submit progress reports on a confirmatory trial every six months until the trial is complete, and such reports will be published on the FDA’s website. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or to confirm the predicted clinical benefit of the product during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw approval of the drug. All promotional materials for drug products being considered and approved under the accelerated approval program are subject to prior review by the FDA. Lawmakers, FDA officials, and other stakeholders have recently been evaluating the accelerated approval program and have proposed potential reforms to improve certain aspects and in February 2024 the FDA announced its first use of the law’s amended procedures to withdraw an accelerated approval following the drug’s confirmatory study failing to verify clinical benefit. Scrutiny of the accelerated approval pathway is likely to continue and may lead to legislative and/or administrative changes in the future.

Special Protocol Assessment

A company may reach an agreement with FDA under the SPA process as to the required design and size of clinical trials intended to form the primary basis of an efficacy claim. Under the FDCA and FDA guidance implementing the statutory requirement, an SPA is generally binding upon the FDA except in limited circumstances, such as if the FDA identifies a substantial scientific issue essential to determining safety or efficacy after the clinical trial begins, public health concerns emerge that were unrecognized at the time of the protocol assessment, the sponsor and FDA agree to the change in writing, or if the clinical trial sponsor fails to follow the protocol that was agreed upon with the FDA.

Post-Approval Requirements

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. Certain modifications to the product, including changes in indications or manufacturing processes or facilities, may require the applicant to develop additional data or conduct additional nonclinical studies and clinical trials to support the submission to FDA. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements for any marketed products, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

The FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA. For example, the FDA may require post-marketing testing, including, but not limited to, Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization. After approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market.

In addition, FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMPs. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to the organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports and returned or salvaged products. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and some state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA for compliance with cGMP requirements and other laws. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of quality control and quality assurance.

The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drug products that are placed on the market. A product cannot be commercially promoted before it is approved, and approved drugs may generally be promoted only for their approved indications and for use in patient populations described in the product’s approved labeling. Promotional claims must also be consistent with the product’s FDA-approved label, including claims related to safety and effectiveness. The government also closely scrutinizes the promotion of prescription drugs in specific contexts such as direct-to-consumer advertising, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet and social media. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The agency has recently finalized guidance for industry that provides modernized recommendations for how drug manufacturers can share truthful, scientifically sound, and clinically relevant information on unapproved uses of FDA-approved drugs with health care providers.

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences of regulatory non-compliance include, among other things:

•

restrictions on, or suspensions of, the marketing or manufacturing of the product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls;

•

interruption of production processes, including the shutdown of manufacturing facilities or production lines or the imposition of new manufacturing requirements;

•

fines, warning letters or other enforcement letters or clinical holds on post-approval clinical trials;

•

mandated modification of promotional materials and labeling and the issuance of corrective information;

•

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

•

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

•

injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties; or

•

consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, debarment, or exclusion from federal health care programs.

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

Act (the “DSCSA”), was enacted in 2013 with the aim of building an electronic system to identify and trace certain prescription drugs distributed in the United States. The DSCSA mandated resource-intensive obligations for pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers over a 10‑year period that culminated in November 2023. However, the FDA announced a one-year stabilization period, until November 2024, followed by trading partner-specific exemptions through specified dates in 2025, to give entities subject to the DSCSA additional time to finalize interoperable tracking systems and to ensure supply chain continuity. From time to time, new legislation and regulations may be implemented that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. For example, FDA released proposed regulations in February 2022 to amend the national standards for licensing of wholesale drug distributors by the states; establish new minimum standards for state licensing third-party logistics providers; and create a federal system for licensure for use in the absence of a State program, each of which is mandated by the DSCSA. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative or regulatory changes will be enacted, or FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations changed or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

Regulatory Exclusivity and Approval of Follow-on Products

Hatch-Waxman Exclusivity

In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA, Congress enacted Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA and also established an abbreviated regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve generic drugs that are shown to contain the same active ingredients as, and to be bioequivalent to, drugs previously approved by the FDA pursuant to NDAs. To obtain approval of a generic drug, an applicant must submit an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) to the agency. An ANDA is a comprehensive submission that contains, among other things, data and information pertaining to the active pharmaceutical ingredient, bioequivalence, drug product formulation, specifications and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods, manufacturing process validation data and quality control procedures. ANDAs are “abbreviated” because they cannot include preclinical and clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Instead, in support of such applications, a generic manufacturer must rely on the preclinical and clinical testing previously conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference listed drug (“RLD”).

Specifically, in order for an ANDA to be approved, the FDA must find that the generic version is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, the strength of the drug and the conditions of use of the drug. At the same time, the FDA must also determine that the generic drug is “bioequivalent” to the innovator drug. Under the statute, a generic drug is bioequivalent to an RLD if “the rate and extent of absorption of the drug do not show a significant difference from the rate and extent of absorption of the listed drug.”

Upon approval of an ANDA, the FDA indicates whether the generic product is “therapeutically equivalent” to the RLD in its publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” also referred to as the “Orange Book.” Physicians and pharmacists consider a therapeutic equivalent generic drug to be fully substitutable for the RLD. In addition, by operation of certain state laws and numerous health insurance programs, the FDA’s designation of therapeutic equivalence often results in substitution of the generic drug without the knowledge or consent of either the prescribing physician or patient.

In contrast, Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. A Section 505(b)(2) applicant may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical or clinical studies if it can establish that reliance on studies conducted for a previously-approved product is scientifically appropriate. Unlike the ANDA pathway used by developers of bioequivalent versions of innovator drugs, which does not allow applicants to submit new clinical data other than bioavailability or bioequivalence data, the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway does not preclude the possibility that a follow-on applicant would need to conduct additional clinical trials or nonclinical studies; for example, it may be seeking approval to market a previously approved drug for new indications or for a new patient population that would require new clinical data to demonstrate safety or effectiveness.

As part of the NDA review and approval process, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent that has claims that cover the applicant’s product or method of therapeutic use. Upon approval of a new drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential follow-on competitors in support of approval of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA. The FDA’s role in this process is purely “ministerial” and it does not review or assess the claims within each patent to determine whether they cover the drug product or its approved method of use. Patents that may fall outside the scope of what the FDCA and FDA’s implementing regulations define as needing to be listed by the NDA holder are periodically challenged by competitors and other stakeholders, either through FDA’s administrative challenge process or in the court system as anticompetitive or unfair behavior. In particular, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a policy statement in September 2023 indicating that it would be scrutinizing the “improper” submission of patents for listing in the Orange Book on the basis that such listings may harm competition from cheaper generic alternatives and keep brand prices artificially high. The FTC followed that action in November 2023 by publicly calling out over 100 “improper” patent listings made by ten large pharmaceutical companies and initiating an FDA administrative process with respect to those patents. The controversy regarding the appropriateness of listing such patents has led to numerous lawsuits alleging anticompetitive conduct by biopharmaceutical companies. It is unclear whether the FTC under the Trump Administration will continue to prioritize the policy issue of “improper” patent listings or whether Congress may take any legislative actions related to this issue.

When an ANDA applicant submits its application to the FDA, it is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify that: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. Moreover, to the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) NDA applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant also is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the NDA-approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would.

If the follow-on applicant does not challenge the innovator’s listed patents, the FDA will not approve the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid, is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the follow-on applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the follow-on applicant.

An ANDA or 505(b)(2) application also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivities listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product have expired. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA provided a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity (“NCE”). For the purposes of this provision, an NCE is a drug that contains no active moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. In cases where such NCE exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may not be filed with the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following the original product approval.

The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of data exclusivity if an NDA or NDA supplement includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as new indications, dosage forms, route of administration or combination of ingredients. Three-year exclusivity would be available for a drug product that contains a previously approved active moiety, provided the statutory requirement for a new clinical investigation is satisfied. Unlike five-year NCE exclusivity, an award of three-year exclusivity does not block the FDA from accepting ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs seeking approval for follow-on versions of the drug as of the date of approval of the original drug product; rather, this three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and, as a general matter, does not prohibit the FDA from approving follow-on applications for drugs containing the original active ingredient.

Five-year and three-year exclusivity also will not delay the submission or approval of a traditional NDA filed under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA; however, an applicant submitting a traditional NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. For drug products that contain an “antibiotic” ingredient approved prior to 1997, the statute imposes certain limitations on the award of non-patent exclusivity. However, we do not believe these limitations would apply to tebipenem HBr or any of our other investigational antibiotics currently in preclinical and clinical development.

Qualified Infectious Disease Product Exclusivity

Under the GAIN Act, the FDA may designate a qualified product as a QIDP. In order to qualify for designation as a QIDP, the drug product candidate must be an antibiotic or antifungal drug for human use intended to treat serious or life-threatening infections, including those caused by either (i) an antibiotic or antifungal resistant pathogen, including novel or emerging infectious pathogens, or (ii) a so-called “qualifying pathogen” found on a list of potentially dangerous, drug-resistant organisms to be established and maintained by the FDA. We obtained a QIDP designation for the oral formulation of tebipenem HBr for cUTI in November 2016 and for CABP and DFI in April 2017. We were granted QIDP designation by the FDA for SPR206 in October 2018 for the treatment of cUTI and hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). In February 2019, we were granted QIDP designation for SPR720 capsule for oral use for the treatment of lung infections caused by nontuberculous mycobacteria and for the treatment of lung infections caused by Mycobacterium TB.

In addition to the expedited review benefits for which a QIDP-designated drug candidate may be eligible, such a drug that is approved for the use for which the QIDP designation was granted will receive a five-year extension to any non-patent marketing exclusivity period for which the drug qualified upon approval, such as five-year NCE exclusivity, three-year new clinical data exclusivity, seven-year orphan exclusivity, or six-month pediatric exclusivity. This so-called GAIN exclusivity extension is not available to a QIDP-designated drug that has previously received the five-year extension period, such as when an applicant is seeking approval for a new indication or new strength of an FDA-approved and commercially marketed drug.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

In March 2020, the FDA granted orphan drug designation for SPR720 for the treatment of NTM infection. 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 either (i) fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or (ii) more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the United States a drug for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug. Legislative proposals are currently being considered that would revise or revoke the second option available for a drug candidate to receive an orphan designation, the so-called “cost recovery” pathway. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use will be disclosed publicly by the FDA; the posting will also indicate whether a drug is no longer designated as an orphan drug.

More than one product candidate may receive an orphan drug designation for the same indication, and the same product candidate can be designated for more than one qualified orphan indication. The benefits of orphan drug designation include research and development tax credits and exemption from FDA prescription drug user fees. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process if or when an NDA for the drug candidate is filed.

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that for seven years, the FDA may not approve any other marketing applications for the same drug for the same indication, except under limited circumstances described further below. Orphan exclusivity does not block the approval of a different drug for the same rare disease or condition, nor does it block the approval of the same drug for different conditions. As a result, even if one of our product candidates receives orphan drug exclusivity, the FDA can still approve different drugs for use in treating the same indication or disease, which could create a more competitive market for our drug products, if approved for marketing in the future. Additionally, if a drug designated as an orphan product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated, it may not be entitled to orphan drug exclusivity. Recent court cases have challenged FDA’s approach to determining the scope of orphan drug exclusivity; however, at this time the agency continues to apply its long-standing interpretation of the governing regulations and has stated that it does not plan to change any orphan drug implementing regulations. Congress may also act to amend the law in this area at some point in the future.

Orphan exclusivity will not bar approval of another product with the same drug for the same condition under certain circumstances, including if a subsequent product with the same drug for the same condition is shown to be clinically superior to the approved product on the basis of greater efficacy or safety or a major contribution to patient care, or if the company with orphan drug exclusivity cannot assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the drug to meet the needs of persons with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. The FDA is now required to publish a summary of the clinical superiority findings when a drug is eligible for orphan product exclusivity on the basis of a demonstration of clinical superiority.

In addition, the FDA has finalized guidance indicating that it does not expect to grant any additional orphan drug designation to products for pediatric subpopulations of common diseases. Nevertheless, FDA intends to still grant orphan drug designation to a drug that otherwise meets all other criteria for designation when it prevents, diagnoses or treats either (i) a rare disease that includes a rare pediatric subpopulation, (ii) a pediatric subpopulation that constitutes a valid orphan subset, or (iii) a rare disease that is, in fact, a different disease in the pediatric population as compared to the adult population.

Pediatric Exclusivity

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity available in the United States and, if granted, it provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity or listed patents. Under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (“BPCA”), certain therapeutic candidates may obtain an additional six months of exclusivity if the sponsor submits information requested in writing by the FDA, referred to as a Written Request, relating to the use of the active moiety of the product candidate in children. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, the additional protection is granted if the pediatric clinical trial is deemed to have fairly responded to the FDA’s Written Request. Although the FDA may issue a Written Request for studies on either approved or unapproved indications, it may only do so where it determines that information relating to that use of a product candidate in a pediatric population, or part of the pediatric population, may produce health benefits in that population. The issuance of a Written Request does not require the sponsor to undertake the described trials. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application.

Foreign Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries or economic areas, such as the European Union (“EU”) and Australia, before we may commence clinical trials or market products in those countries or areas. The approval process and requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product authorization, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from place to place, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.

Before clinical trials may be conducted in any EU Member State, a sponsor must submit a clinical trial authorization application (“CTA”), which must be approved in each country in which the sponsor intends to perform a clinical trial. The procedure for submitting a CTA was set forth in an existing EU Clinical Trial Directive. However, the way clinical trials are conducted in the EU underwent a major change when the Clinical Trial Regulation became effective, which occurred on January 31, 2022. The Regulation harmonizes the assessment and supervision processes for clinical trials throughout the EU, via an EU portal and database. Under the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, a harmonized assessment and supervision processes was implemented as of January 31, 2022 for clinical trials throughout the EU, via a Clinical Trials Information System (“CTIS”). The CTIS contains the centralized EU portal and database for clinical trials conducted in the EU and will allow for a centralized review process. This harmonized submission process became mandatory for new CTA submissions as of February 1, 2023. For ongoing clinical trials, if a clinical trial continues for more than three years from the day on which the Clinical Trials Regulation became applicable, the Clinical Trials Regulation will at that time begin to apply to the clinical trial.

The goal of Clinical Trial Regulation is to create an environment that is favorable to conducting clinical trials in the EU, with the highest standards of safety for participants and increased transparency of trial information. The Regulation will require consistent rules for conducting clinical trials throughout the EU and information on the authorization, conduct and results of each clinical trial carried out in the EU to be publicly available.

The United Kingdom left the European Union on January 31, 2020 (commonly referred to as “Brexit”), with a transitional period that expired on December 31, 2020. The United Kingdom and the European Union entered into a trade agreement known as the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which went into effect on January 1, 2021. We will continue to evaluate the potential impacts on our business of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement and guidance issued to date by the United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) regarding the requirements for licensing and marketing medicinal products and drugs in the United Kingdom. Since the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom covering the quality, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of medicinal products is derived from EU Directives and Regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime which applies to products and the approval of product candidates in the United Kingdom. More recently, in March 2023, the UK government and the European Commission reached agreement on a regulatory framework to replace the Northern Ireland Protocol, referred to as the Windsor Framework. The Windsor Framework is expected to apply as of January 1, 2025 and will change the existing system under the Northern Ireland Protocol, including the regulation of pharmaceutical products in the UK. Specifically, the MHRA will be responsible for approving all medicines intended to be marketed in the UK (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland), while the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) will no longer be involved in approving medicines intended for sale in Northern Ireland.

Under EU regulatory systems, a company may submit marketing authorization applications either under a centralized or decentralized procedure. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicinal products produced by biotechnology or those medicinal products containing new active substances for specific indications such as the treatment of AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, viral diseases and designated orphan medicines, and optional for other medicines which are highly innovative. Under the centralized procedure, a marketing application is submitted to the EMA where it will be evaluated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and a favorable opinion typically results in the grant by the European Commission of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all EU Member States within 67 days of receipt of the opinion. The initial marketing authorization is valid for five years, but once renewed is usually valid for an unlimited period. The decentralized procedure provides for approval by one or more “concerned” member states based on an assessment of an application performed by one member state, known as the “reference” member state. Under the decentralized approval procedure, an applicant submits an application, or dossier, and related materials to the reference member state and concerned member states. The reference member state prepares a draft assessment and drafts of the related materials within 120 days after receipt of a valid application. Within 90 days of receiving the reference member state’s assessment report, each concerned member state must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials. If a member state does not recognize the marketing authorization, the disputed points are eventually referred to the European Commission, whose decision is binding on all member states.

In April 2023, the European Commission adopted a proposal that will revise and replace the existing general pharmaceutical legislation. If implemented as currently proposed, these revisions will significantly change several aspects of drug development and approval in the European Union.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

Sales of our products, if approved for marketing, will depend, in part, on the availability and extent of coverage and reimbursement by third-party payors, such as government health programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and limiting the coverage and reimbursement amounts for medical products and services. There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for approved products, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA or regulatory authorities in other countries. It is time-consuming and expensive to seek reimbursement from third-party payors. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any product will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim payments for new products, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Payment rates may vary according to the use of the product and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on payments allowed for lower-cost products that are already reimbursed and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for products may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by third-party payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of products from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. In the United States, third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies, but they also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare coverage and reimbursement determinations. Accordingly, one third-party payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product.

In addition, the containment of healthcare costs has become a priority for federal and state governments, and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement, and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for our product candidates or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover our product candidates could reduce physician usage of the product candidate and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical 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. In December 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that federal law does not preempt the states’ ability to regulate pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”) and other members of the health care and pharmaceutical supply chain, an important decision that has led to more aggressive efforts by states in this area. The Federal Trade Commission in mid-2022 also launched sweeping investigations into the practices of the PBM industry that could lead to additional federal and state legislative or regulatory proposals targeting such entities’ operations, pharmacy networks, or financial arrangements. During the current congressional session, numerous PBM reforms are being considered in both the Senate and the House of Representatives; they include diverse legislative proposals such as eliminating rebates; divorcing service fees from the price of a drug, discount, or rebate; prohibiting spread pricing; limiting administrative fees; requiring PBMs to report formulary placement rationale; promoting transparency. Significant efforts to change the PBM industry as it currently exists in the United States may affect the entire pharmaceutical supply chain and the business of other stakeholders, including pharmaceutical product developers like us.

In the United States, the federal government provides health insurance for people who are 65 years or older, and certain people with disabilities or certain conditions irrespective of their age, through the Medicare program, which is administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”). Coverage and reimbursement for products and services under Medicare are determined in accordance with the Social Security Act and pursuant to regulations promulgated by CMS, as well as the agency’s coverage and reimbursement guidance and determinations. Drugs and other products that are utilized within the hospital in-patient setting are typically reimbursed under a prospective payment system, or a predetermined payment amount that is based on diagnosis-related groups (“DRGs”) for Medicare patients and under a bundled payment for commercially insured patients. These payment amounts differ by type of diagnoses, procedures performed and the severity of the patient’s condition, among other things. A drug that is used in a treatment or procedure under a specific DRG or bundled payment is generally not eligible for any separate payment. For catastrophic cases where costs greatly exceed the bundled payment amount, the hospital may be eligible for an outlier payment that is intended to cover part of the expense above the standard payment.

Medicaid is a health insurance program for low-income children, families, pregnant women, and people with disabilities that is jointly funded by the federal and state governments but administered by the states. In general, state Medicaid programs are required to cover drugs of manufacturers that have entered into a Medicaid Drug Rebate Agreement, although such drugs may be subject to prior authorization or other utilization controls.

The U.S. Congress and state legislatures from time to time propose and adopt initiatives aimed at cost containment, which could impact our ability to sell our products profitably. For example, the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, known collectively as the ACA, among other things, contains provisions that may reduce the profitability of drug products through increased rebates for drugs reimbursed by Medicaid programs, an 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. Adoption of general controls and measures, coupled with the tightening of restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could limit payments for pharmaceutical drugs. The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to enter into and have in effect a national rebate agreement with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”) as a condition for states to receive federal matching funds for manufacturers’ outpatient drugs furnished to Medicaid patients. The ACA also expanded the universe of Medicaid utilization subject to drug rebates by requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay rebates on Medicaid managed care utilization and by enlarging the population potentially eligible for Medicaid drug benefits. As another example, the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act signed into law on December 27, 2020, incorporated extensive healthcare provisions and amendments to existing laws, including a requirement that all manufacturers of drug products covered under Medicare Part B report the product’s average sales price (“ASP”) to DHHS beginning on January 1, 2022, subject to enforcement via civil money penalties. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 also included a provision that eliminated the statutory cap on rebates that drug manufacturers pay to Medicaid. Beginning in January 2024, Medicaid rebates are no longer be capped at 100 percent of the quarterly average manufacturer price (“AMP”).

In August 2022, President Biden signed into the law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”). Among other things, the IRA has multiple provisions that may impact the prices of drug products that are both sold into the Medicare program and throughout the United States. Starting in 2023, a manufacturer of drugs or biological products covered by Medicare Parts B or D must pay a rebate to the federal government if their drug product’s price increases faster than the rate of inflation. This calculation is made on a drug product by drug product basis and the amount of the rebate owed to the federal government is directly dependent on the volume of a drug product that is paid for by Medicare Parts B or D. Additionally, starting for payment year 2026, CMSis negotiating drug prices annually for a select number of single source Part D drugs without generic or biosimilar competition. CMS will also negotiate drug prices for a select number of Part B drugs starting for payment year 2028. If a drug product is selected by CMS for negotiation, it is expected that the revenue generated from such drug will decrease. CMS has begun to implement these new authorities, entering and entered into the first set of agreements with pharmaceutical manufacturers to conduct price negotiations in October 2023 and ultimately announcing the first round of negotiated prices for the first 10 drugs in August 2024; those negotiated “maximum fair prices” will be effective as of January 1, 2026 (payment year 2026). CMS is currently engaged in its second round of negotiations and published the next 15 drugs selected for negotiation in January 2025. However, the IRA’s impact on the pharmaceutical industry in the United States remains uncertain, in part because multiple large pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders (e.g., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) have initiated federal lawsuits against CMS arguing the program is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, among other complaints. The outcome of such ongoing lawsuits, as well as potential legislative changes enacted by Congress or programmatic changes implemented at CMS by the Trump Administration, may impact the IRA drug price negotiation program in the future.

We expect that federal, state and local governments in the United States will continue to consider legislation directed at lowering the total cost of health care. Individual states in the United States have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical 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, in recent years, several states have formed prescription drug affordability boards (“PDABs”). Much like the IRA’s drug price negotiation program, these PDABs have attempted to implement upper payment limits on drugs sold in their respective states in both public and commercial health plans. For example, in August 2023, Colorado’s PDAB announced a list of five prescription drugs that would undergo an affordability review. The effects of these efforts remain uncertain pending the outcomes of several federal lawsuits challenging state authority to regulate prescription drug payment limits.

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, in the EU, the sole legal instrument at the EU level governing the pricing and reimbursement of medicinal products is Council Directive 89/105/EEC (the “Price Transparency Directive”). The aim of this Directive is to ensure that pricing and reimbursement mechanisms established in the EU Member States are transparent and objective, do not hinder the free movement of and trade in medicinal products in the EU, and do not hinder, prevent or distort competition on the market. The Price Transparency Directive does not provide any guidance concerning the specific criteria on the basis of which pricing and reimbursement decisions are to be made in the individual EU Member States, nor does it have any direct consequence for pricing or reimbursement levels in the individual EU Member States. The EU Member States are free to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement, and to control the prices and/or reimbursement levels of medicinal products for human use. An EU Member State may approve a specific price or level of reimbursement for the medicinal product, or alternatively adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company responsible for placing the medicinal product on the market, including volume-based arrangements, caps and reference pricing mechanisms.

Health Technology Assessment (“HTA”) of medicinal products is becoming an increasingly common part of the pricing and reimbursement procedures in some EU Member States, including France, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Sweden. The HTA process in the EU Member States is governed by the national laws of these countries. HTA is the procedure according to which the assessment of the public health impact, therapeutic impact, and the economic and societal impact of the use of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country is conducted. HTA generally focuses on the clinical efficacy and effectiveness, safety, cost, and cost-effectiveness of individual medicinal products as well as their potential implications for the healthcare system. Those elements of medicinal products are compared with other treatment options available on the market. The outcome of HTA regarding specific medicinal products will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU Member States. The extent to which pricing and reimbursement decisions are influenced by the HTA of the specific medicinal product vary between the EU Member States. A negative HTA of one of our products by a leading and recognized HTA body could not only undermine our ability to obtain reimbursement for such product in the EU Member State in which such negative assessment was issued, but also in the other EU Member States. For example, EU Member States that have not yet developed HTA mechanisms could rely to some extent on the HTA performed in countries with a developed HTA framework when adopting decisions concerning the pricing and reimbursement of a specific medicinal product.

Other Healthcare Laws

Our current and future business operations are subject to healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and the state and foreign governments where we research, and, if approved, market, sell and distribute our therapeutic candidates. These laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security, physician sunshine and drug pricing transparency laws and regulations such as:

•

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person from knowingly and willfully offering, 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. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute is subject to evolving interpretations. In the past, the government has enforced the federal Anti-Kickback Statute to reach large settlements with healthcare companies based on sham consulting and other financial arrangements with physicians. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. 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 and criminal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act, and civil monetary penalty laws, prohibit, among other things, knowingly presenting or causing the presentation of a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim for payment to the U.S. government, knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the U.S. government, or from knowingly making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the U.S. government. Actions under these laws may be brought by the Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government. The federal government uses these laws, and the accompanying threat of significant liability, in its investigation and prosecution of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies throughout the U.S., for example, in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses and other allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices;

•

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) created new federal, civil and criminal statutes that prohibit among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, 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. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;

•

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, enacted as part of the ACA, among other things, imposes reporting requirements on manufacturers of FDA-approved drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies covered by Medicare or Medicaid to report, on an annual basis, to CMS information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain advanced non-physician health care practitioners and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members;

•

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”) and their respective implementing regulations impose specified requirements relating to the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information that is protected under HIPAA, called “protected health information” or “PHI”. HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, also requires notification to affected individuals and to federal regulators in the event of a breach of unsecured protected health information. HIPAA applies to “covered entities” or health care providers engaging in certain electronic standard transactions, such as electronic billing; health plans and healthcare clearinghouses. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to “business associates,” defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and third parties who acquire PHI unlawfully, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions;

•

State and federal consumer protection laws, including the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Washington My Health, My Data Act, and other state privacy laws in Nevada and Connecticut govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health and other personal information and could apply to our operations and the operations of our collaborators; and

•

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 which require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring drug and therapeutic biologics manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures and pricing information; state and local laws which require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; and state laws and non-U.S. laws and regulations that govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Healthcare Reform

Healthcare Trends Affecting Pharmaceutical Pricing, Reimbursement and Access

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, legislative and regulatory policy proposals focused on controlling pharmaceutical pricing. Key issues include:

•

Proposals to alter to how Medicare Part B and Part D drugs are priced and roles of the CMS in controlling growth rates, coverage, and access;

•

Proposals related to the Medicare drug benefit and the role and application of manufacturer and pharmacy rebates;

•

Proposals to disclosure proprietary information related to price setting, price increases and associated manufacturing and marketing expenses;

•

Proposals to reduce patent and non-patent exclusivity periods; and

•

State-level policy regarding pricing, access and rebates.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect the ability to profitably sell product candidates that obtain marketing approval. The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our current or future product candidates.

Antimicrobial Policy

Efforts to respond to the growth of antimicrobial resistance (“AMR”) have taken various forms, from non-dilutive financing of discovery, research, and development to proposals to reward innovation and enhance reimbursement. Several previous efforts in the U.S. Congress include the: Pioneering Antimicrobial Subscriptions to End Upsurging Resistance (“PASTEUR”) Act that would direct large federal payments for critical need antimicrobials and the Developing an Innovative Strategy for Antimicrobial Resistant Microorganisms (DISARM) Act that would provide for separate market-rate payments for antimicrobials used in hospital settings; as well as additional funding streams provided in pandemic response efforts linked to the coronavirus. AMR remains a focus of the many policymakers internationally as well, including efforts in the United Kingdom to discover new antibacterial and a recent G7 Finance Ministers statement supporting new product development.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of any of our product candidates, nor do we have plans to develop our own manufacturing operations in the foreseeable future. We currently rely on a limited number of third-party contract manufacturers for all of our required raw materials, drug substance, and finished drug product for our preclinical research and clinical trials. We currently employ internal resources to manage our manufacturing. We currently have two suppliers for tebipenem HBr’s active pharmaceutical ingredient. Each supplier would be capable of producing kilogram quantities for commercial scale and would be able to produce over 10kg of an active pharmaceutical ingredient under cGMP conditions.

Human Capital

As of December 31, 2024, we had 32 employees, including a total of 9 employees with M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. Of these employees, 16 were primarily engaged in research and development activities, and 16 provided administrative, business and operations support. All our employees are based in the United States. None of our employees are represented by labor unions (guilds) or are covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our employee relations to be favorable based on our history of retention and engagement.

We hire and maintain an experienced, committed, and highly motivated workforce. Effective attraction, development and retention of human resource talent, or human capital, is vital to the success of our mission-driven strategy. We compete with various pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, universities, governmental entities and other research institutions for talent and believe our success depends on our ability to attract and retain highly skilled employees. Accordingly, we offer a competitive total rewards package consisting of base salary, cash target bonus, comprehensive benefits and equity awards.

We want our employees to learn, grow and look for ways to help develop skills through industry, company and functional training and development. We offer career-enhancing learning experiences and initiatives to all employees, aligned with our mission, vision and values.

Our Corporate Information

We were formed as Spero Therapeutics, LLC in December 2013 under the laws of the State of Delaware. On June 30, 2017, through a series of transactions, Spero Therapeutics, LLC merged with and into Spero Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly known as Spero OpCo, Inc.), a Delaware corporation. Our principal executive offices are located at 675 Massachusetts Avenue, 14th Floor, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, and our telephone number is (857) 242-1600. Our website address is www.sperotherapeutics.com.

Available Information

Financial and other information about us is available on our website. We make available on our website, free of charge, copies of 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 of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The information contained in our website is not intended to be a part of this filing.