Taysha Gene Therapies Inc

Our business is subject to risks and events that, if they occur, could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations and the trading price of our securities. In addition to the other information set forth in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, you should carefully consider the factors described in Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” of our Annual Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2025.

Healthcare legislative or regulatory reform measures may have a negative impact on our business and results of operations.

Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. For example, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry.

There have been judicial, congressional, and executive branch challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, including efforts to repeal or replace certain aspects of the ACA. For example, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or the IRA, was signed into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and creating a new manufacturer discount program. It is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. It is also unclear how any additional healthcare reform measures of the second Trump administration will impact the ACA and our business.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which began in 2013, and due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect until 2032, unless additional congressional action is taken. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have an adverse effect on customers for our product candidates, if approved, and, accordingly, our financial operations. Additionally, on March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, effective January 1, 2024.

Additionally, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent Presidential executive orders, 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 products. At the federal level, the IRA, among other things, (i) directs Health and Human Services, or HHS, to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source biologics that have been on the market for at least 11 years covered under Medicare, or the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, and subject drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” for such drugs and biologics under the law, and (ii) imposes rebates with respect to certain drugs and biologics covered under Medicare Part B or Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. The IRA permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. These provisions began to take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023. On August 15, 2024, HHS announced the agreed-upon price of the first ten drugs that were subject to price negotiations, although the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program is currently subject to legal challenges. On January 17, 2025, HHS selected fifteen additional products covered under Part D for price negotiation in 2025. Each year thereafter more Part B and Part D products will become subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Further, on December 7, 2023, an initiative to control the price of prescription drugs through the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act was announced. On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncertain if that will continue under the new framework. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

We expect that these and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved drug. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our drugs. The current Trump administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government including at HHS, the FDA, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. These actions include, for example, directives to reduce agency workforce, program cuts, rescinding a Biden administration executive order tasking the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation to consider new payment and healthcare models to limit drug spending and eliminating the Biden administration’s executive order that directed HHS to establishing an AI task force and developing a strategic plan, directing HHS to lower prescription drug costs for Medicare through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, and directing certain federal agencies to enforce existing law regarding hospital and plan price transparency and by standardizing prices across hospitals and health plans. Additionally, in its June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine, under which courts were required to give deference to regulatory agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. The Loper Bright decision could result in additional legal challenges to current regulations and guidance issued by federal agencies applicable to our operations, including those issued by the FDA.

In addition, FDA and comparable foreign regulatory regulations and guidance may be revised or reinterpreted by the FDA or the comparable foreign regulatory in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. Any new regulations or guidance, or revisions or reinterpretations of existing regulations or guidance, may impose additional costs or lengthen FDA review times for TSHA-102 or any future product candidates. We cannot determine how changes in regulations, statutes, policies, or interpretations when and if issued, enacted or adopted, may affect our business in the future. Such changes could, among other things, require:

• additional clinical trials to be conducted prior to obtaining approval;

• changes to manufacturing methods;

• recalls, replacements, or discontinuance of one or more of our products; and

• additional recordkeeping.

For instance, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the European Union recently evolved. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each EU Member State, leading to a single decision for each EU Member State. The assessment procedure for the authorization of clinical trials has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all EU Member States concerned, and a separate assessment by each EU Member State with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each EU Member State’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the clinical trial is approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. For clinical trials in relation to which application for approval was made on the basis of the Clinical Trials Directive before January 31, 2023, the Clinical Trials Directive continued to apply on a transitional basis until January 31, 2025, by which date all ongoing trials under the Clinical Trials Directive became subject to the provisions of the CTR and all new trials since January 31, 2023 have been subject to the CTR. Compliance with the CTR requirements by us and our third-party service providers, such as CROs, may impact our developments plans.

In addition, on April 26, 2023, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new Directive and Regulation to revise the existing pharmaceutical legislation. The proposed revisions remain to be agreed and adopted by the European Council. Moreover, on December 1, 2024, a new European Commission took office. The proposal could, therefore, still be subject to revisions. If adopted in the form proposed, the recent European Commission proposals to revise the existing EU laws governing authorization of medicinal products may result in a decrease in data and market exclusivity opportunities for our product candidates in the European Union and make them open to generic or biosimilar competition earlier than is currently the case with a related reduction in reimbursement status.

If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, our development plans may be impacted.

Such changes would likely require substantial time and impose significant costs, or could reduce the potential commercial value of TSHA-102 or other product candidates, and could materially harm our business and our financial results. In addition, delays in receipt of or failure to receive regulatory clearances or approvals for any other products would harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.