Vera Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous wording

As of March 31, 2025, we had $589.8 million in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities. We expect that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will be sufficient to fund our planned operations and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next 12 months from the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Our estimate is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned. Moreover, it is particularly difficult to estimate with certainty our future expenses given the dynamic nature of our business and the macroeconomic and geopolitical environment generally. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if, and as, we:

Current wording

As of June 30, 2025, we had $556.8 million in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities. We expect that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will be sufficient to fund our planned operations and capital expenditure requirements beyond the next 12 months from the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Our estimate is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned. Moreover, it is particularly difficult to estimate with certainty our future expenses given the dynamic nature of our business and the macroeconomic and geopolitical environment generally. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if, and as, we:

Previous wording

We have incurred net losses in each reporting period since the commencement of our operations and have not generated any revenue from product sales to date. We had net losses of $51.7 million and $28.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. We had an accumulated deficit of $512.9 million as of March 31, 2025. Our losses have resulted principally from expenses incurred in research and development and from management and administrative costs and other expenses that we have incurred while building our business infrastructure. Our product candidates are in clinical and pre-clinical development. As a result, we expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we have a commercialized product and generate revenue from product sales. Even if we succeed in receiving marketing approval for and commercializing our product candidates in one or more indications, we expect that we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenses as we continue the clinical development programs for our product candidates in other indications.

Current wording

We have incurred net losses in each reporting period since the commencement of our operations and have not generated any revenue from product sales to date. We had net losses of $76.5 million and $33.7 million for the three months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively. We had an accumulated deficit of $589.5 million as of June 30, 2025. Our losses have resulted principally from expenses incurred in research and development and from management and administrative costs and other expenses that we have incurred while building our business infrastructure. Our product candidates are in clinical and pre-clinical development. Even if one or more product candidates is commercialized, we expect that it will be several years, if ever, before revenue from product sales will result in net income. Even if we succeed in receiving marketing approval for and commercializing our product candidates in one or more indications, we expect that we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenses as we continue the clinical development programs for our product candidates in other indications.

Previous wording

In December 2021, the Company entered into a non-revolving loan and security agreement (the Loan Agreement) with borrowing capacity up to $50.0 million. As of March 31, 2025, the Company’s outstanding debt balance was $50.0 million. Our overall leverage and certain obligations and affirmative and negative covenants contained in the related documentation could adversely affect our financial health and business and future operations by limiting our ability to, among other things, satisfy our obligations under the Loan Agreement, refinance our debt on terms acceptable to us or at all, plan for and adjust to changing business, industry and market conditions, use our available cash flow to fund future acquisitions and make dividend payments, and obtain additional financing for working capital, to fund growth or for general corporate purposes, even when necessary to maintain adequate liquidity.

Current wording

In June 2025, the Company entered into the 2025 Loan Agreement providing for borrowing capacity of up to $500.0 million. As of June 30, 2025, the Company’s outstanding debt balance under the 2025 Loan Agreement was $75.0 million. Our overall leverage and certain obligations and affirmative and negative covenants contained in the related documentation could adversely affect our financial health and business and future operations by limiting our ability to, among other things, satisfy our obligations under the 2025 Loan Agreement, refinance our debt on terms acceptable to us or at all, plan for and adjust to changing business, industry and market conditions, use our available cash flow to fund future acquisitions and make dividend payments, and obtain additional financing for working capital, to fund growth or for general corporate purposes, even when necessary to maintain adequate liquidity.

Previous wording

If we default under the Loan Agreement, Oxford Finance LLC (Oxford) may accelerate all of our repayment obligations and exercise all of their rights and remedies under the Loan Agreement and applicable law, potentially requiring us to renegotiate our agreement on terms less favorable to us. Further, if we are liquidated, the lenders’ right to repayment would be senior to the rights of the holders of our common stock to receive any proceeds from the liquidation. Oxford could declare a default upon the occurrence of customary events of default, including events that they interpret as a material adverse change as delineated in the Loan Agreement, payment defaults or breaches of certain affirmative or negative covenants, thereby requiring us to repay the loan immediately. Any declaration by the lender of an event of default could significantly harm our business and prospects and could cause the price of our common stock to decline. Additionally, if we raise any additional debt financing, the terms of such additional debt could further restrict our operating and financial flexibility.

Current wording

If we default under the 2025 Loan Agreement, Oxford may accelerate all of our repayment obligations and exercise all of their rights and remedies under the 2025 Loan Agreement and applicable law, potentially requiring us to renegotiate our agreement on terms less favorable to us. Further, if we are liquidated, the lenders’ right to repayment would be senior to the rights of the holders of our common stock to receive any proceeds from the liquidation. Oxford could declare a default upon the occurrence of customary events of default, including events that they interpret as a material adverse change as delineated in the 2025 Loan Agreement, payment defaults or breaches of certain affirmative or negative covenants, thereby requiring us to repay the loan immediately. Any declaration by the lender of an event of default could significantly harm our business and prospects and could cause the price of our common stock to decline. Additionally, if we raise any additional debt financing, the terms of such additional debt could further restrict our operating and financial flexibility.

Previous wording

Clinical development is a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results. Failure can occur at any stage of clinical development. We have never submitted a BLA to the FDA or similar drug approval filings to comparable foreign authorities. If we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, we will be unable to generate product revenue and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects will be significantly harmed.

Current wording

Clinical development is a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results. Failure can occur at any stage of clinical development. We have never submitted a Biologics License Application (BLA) to the FDA or similar drug approval filings to comparable foreign authorities. If we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, we will be unable to generate product revenue and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects will be significantly harmed.

Previous wording

Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and initial clinical trials. For example, atacicept has been the subject of clinical trials by prior sponsors, including a Phase 2 trial in SLE, that missed its primary endpoint in the overall study population. In the future, clinical trial failures may result from a multitude of factors including flaws in trial design, dose selection, placebo effect and patient enrollment criteria. A number of companies in the biotechnology industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Based upon negative or inconclusive results, we or any potential future collaborator may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or nonclinical studies. In addition, data obtained from trials and studies are susceptible to varying interpretations, and regulators may not interpret our data as favorably as we do, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. Any future delays or abandonment could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and initial clinical trials. For example, atacicept has been the subject of clinical trials by prior sponsors, including a Phase 2 trial in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), that missed its primary endpoint in the overall study population. In the future, clinical trial failures may result from a multitude of factors including flaws in trial design, dose selection, placebo effect and patient enrollment criteria. A number of companies in the biotechnology industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Based upon negative or inconclusive results, we or any potential future collaborator may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or nonclinical studies. In addition, data obtained from trials and studies are susceptible to varying interpretations, and regulators may not interpret our data as favorably as we do, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. Any future delays or abandonment could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Previous wording

Our future clinical trials may not be successful. If any product candidate is found to be unsafe or lack efficacy, we will not be able to obtain regulatory approval for it and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be significantly harmed. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety and/or efficacy results between different trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial protocols, differences in composition of the patient populations, adherence to the dosing regimen and other trial protocols and the dropout rate among clinical trial participants. Patients treated with our product candidates may also be undergoing surgical, radiation and chemotherapy treatments and may be using other approved products or investigational new drugs, which can cause side effects or adverse events that are unrelated to our product candidates. As a result, assessments of efficacy can vary widely for a particular patient, and from patient to patient and site to site within a clinical trial. This subjectivity can increase the uncertainty of, and adversely impact, our clinical trial outcomes. We do not know whether any clinical trials we may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety sufficient to obtain marketing approval to market our product candidates.

Current wording

Our future clinical trials may not be successful. If any product candidate is found to be unsafe or lack efficacy, we will not be able to obtain regulatory approval for it and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be significantly harmed. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety and/or efficacy results between different trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial protocols, differences in composition of the patient populations, adherence to the dosing regimen and other trial protocols and the dropout rate among clinical trial participants. As a result, assessments of efficacy can vary widely for a particular patient, and from patient to patient and site to site within a clinical trial. This subjectivity can increase the uncertainty of, and adversely impact, our clinical trial outcomes. We do not know whether any clinical trials we may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety sufficient to obtain marketing approval to market our product candidates.

Previous wording

shutdowns, either temporarily or permanently, of any facility manufacturing our product candidates or any of their components, including by order from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities due to violations of current good manufacturing practice (cGMP), regulations or other applicable requirements;

Current wording

shutdowns, either temporarily or permanently, of any facility manufacturing our product candidates or any of their components, including by order from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities due to violations of current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) or similar foreign requirements, regulations or other applicable requirements;

Previous wording

The biotechnology industry is intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. Our competitors include multinational pharmaceutical companies, specialized biotechnology companies and universities and other research institutions. The current standard-of-care for IgAN consists of treatment with off-label use of RAAS inhibitors, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, to control blood pressure, or steroids with or without other immunosuppressive agents to non-specifically reduce inflammation. SGLT2 inhibitors, including AstraZeneca’s Farxiga, which is approved for chronic kidney disease, is becoming the standard-of-care in some geographies including the United States. Among emerging therapies, we consider our most direct competitors with respect to atacicept in IgAN to be approved products: the reformulated steroid from Calliditas Therapeutics AB, endothelin and angiotensin II receptor antagonist from Travere Therapeutics, Inc., and both the complement inhibitor and selective ETA receptor agonist from Novartis; programs in Phase 3 clinical development: Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd., Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc., Roche/Ionis and Vertex; and the following companies with programs in Phase 2 of clinical development: AstraZeneca, Biogen Inc., Eladon Pharmaceuticals and DiaMedica Therapeutics, Inc.

Current wording

The biotechnology industry is intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. Our competitors include multinational pharmaceutical companies, specialized biotechnology companies and universities and other research institutions. The current standard-of-care for IgAN consists of treatment with off-label use of RAAS inhibitors, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, to control blood pressure, or steroids with or without other immunosuppressive agents to non-specifically reduce inflammation. SGLT2 inhibitors, including AstraZeneca’s Farxiga, which is approved for chronic kidney disease, is becoming the standard-of-care in some geographies including the United States. Among emerging therapies, we consider our most direct competitors with respect to atacicept in IgAN to be approved products: the reformulated steroid from Asahi Kasei Corp., endothelin and angiotensin II receptor antagonist from Travere Therapeutics, Inc., and both the complement inhibitor and selective ETA receptor agonist from Novartis; programs in Phase 3 clinical development: Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd., Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc., Roche/Ionis, Vertex, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Takeda, and Novartis; and the following companies with programs in Phase 2 of clinical development: Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, NovelMed, and Eladon Pharmaceuticals.

Previous wording

the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may determine that our product candidate is not safe and effective, only moderately effective or have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use;

Current wording

the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may determine that our product candidates are not safe, pure, and/or potent (or effective), only moderately effective, or have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use;

Previous wording

the population studied in the clinical trial may not be sufficiently broad or representative to assure efficacy and safety in the full population for which we seek approval, resulting in a restrictive label and limiting commercial use;

Current wording

the population studied in the clinical trial may not be sufficiently broad or representative to assure efficacy and safety in the full population for which we seek approval, potentially resulting in a restrictive label and limiting commercial use;

Previous wording

In addition, even if we obtain approval of our product candidates for a lead indication, regulatory authorities may not approve them for other indications, may impose significant limitations in the form of narrow indications, warnings, or a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS). Certain regulatory authorities may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials or may approve them with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for successful commercialization of our product candidates. In addition, if we are unable to obtain regulatory approval, or if regulatory approval results in a limited label, our business, financial condition, results of operation and prospects will be significantly harmed.

Current wording

In addition, even if we obtain approval of our product candidates for one indication, regulatory authorities may not approve such product candidates for other indications, may impose significant limitations in the form of narrow indications, warnings, or a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS). Certain regulatory authorities may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials or may approve them with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for successful commercialization of our product candidates. In addition, if we are unable to obtain regulatory approval, or if regulatory approval results in a limited label, our business, financial condition, results of operation and prospects will be significantly harmed.

Previous wording

Our business exposes us to significant product liability risks inherent in the development, testing, manufacturing and marketing of therapeutic treatments. Product liability claims could delay or prevent completion of our development programs. If we succeed in marketing products, such claims could result in an FDA or other regulatory authority investigation of the safety and effectiveness of our product, our manufacturing processes and facilities or our marketing programs. FDA or other regulatory authority investigations could potentially lead to a recall of our product or more serious enforcement action, limitations on the approved indications for which it may be used or suspension or withdrawal of approvals. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may also result in decreased demand for our product, injury to our reputation, costs to defend the related litigation, a diversion of management’s time and our resources and substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients. We currently have product liability insurance that we believe is appropriate for our stage of development and may need to obtain higher levels prior to marketing any product candidate, if approved. Any insurance we have or may obtain may not provide sufficient coverage against potential liabilities. Furthermore, clinical trial and product liability insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, we may be unable to obtain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost to protect us against losses caused by product liability claims that could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

Our business exposes us to significant product liability risks inherent in the development, testing, manufacturing and marketing of therapeutic treatments. Product liability claims could delay or prevent completion of our development programs. If we succeed in obtaining regulatory approval of a product, such claims could result in an FDA or other regulatory authority investigation of the safety and effectiveness of our product, our manufacturing processes and facilities or our marketing programs. FDA or other regulatory authority investigations could potentially lead to a recall of our product or more serious enforcement action, limitations on the approved indications for which it may be used or suspension or withdrawal of approvals. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may also result in decreased demand for our product, injury to our reputation, costs to defend the related litigation, a diversion of management’s time and our resources and substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients. We currently have product liability insurance that we believe is appropriate for our stage of development and may need to obtain higher levels prior to marketing any product candidate, if approved. Any insurance we have or may obtain may not provide sufficient coverage against potential liabilities. Furthermore, clinical trial and product liability insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, we may be unable to obtain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost to protect us against losses caused by product liability claims that could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Previous wording

If product candidates we develop are associated with undesirable side effects or have unexpected characteristics in nonclinical studies or clinical trials when used alone or in combination with other approved products or investigational new drugs, we may need to interrupt, delay or abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. Treatment-related side effects could also affect participant recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete a trial, or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidate and may significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

If product candidates we develop are associated with undesirable side effects or have unexpected characteristics in nonclinical studies or clinical trials when used alone or in combination with other approved products or investigational drugs, we may need to interrupt, delay or abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. Treatment-related side effects could also affect participant recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete a trial, or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidate and may significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Previous wording

Participants in our ongoing and planned clinical trials may in the future suffer significant adverse events or other side effects not observed in our nonclinical studies or previous clinical trials. Our product candidates may be used as chronic therapies or be used in pediatric populations, for which safety concerns may be particularly scrutinized by regulatory authorities. In addition, if atacicept, MAU868, VT-109, or any future product candidates we may develop, are used in combination with other therapies, atacicept, MAU868, VT-109, or any future product candidates we may develop may exacerbate adverse events associated with the therapy and it may not be possible to determine whether it was caused by our product or the one with which it was combined. Patients treated with our product candidates may also be undergoing surgical, radiation, chemotherapy or other treatments, which can cause side effects or adverse events that are unrelated to our product candidates, but may still impact the success of our clinical trials. The inclusion of patients with advanced disease in our clinical trials may result in deaths or other adverse medical events due to other therapies or medications that such patients may be using or due to the gravity of such patients’ illnesses.

Current wording

Participants in our ongoing and planned clinical trials may in the future suffer significant adverse events or other side effects not observed in our nonclinical studies or previous clinical trials. Our product candidates may be used as chronic therapies or be used in pediatric populations, for which safety concerns may be particularly scrutinized by regulatory authorities. In addition, if atacicept, MAU868, VT-109, or any future product candidates we may develop, are used in combination with other therapies, atacicept, MAU868, VT-109, or any future product candidates we may develop may exacerbate adverse events associated with the therapy and it may not be possible to determine whether such adverse events were caused by our product candidate or the agent with which it was combined. The inclusion of patients with advanced disease in our clinical trials may result in deaths or other adverse medical events due to other therapies or medications that such patients may be using or due to the gravity of such patients’ illnesses.

Previous wording

In addition, if a product receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has orphan designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient product quantity for the orphan patient population. Exclusive marketing rights in the United States may also be unavailable if we or our collaborators seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective. Even if we obtain orphan drug designation, we may not be the first to obtain marketing approval for any particular orphan indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product candidate, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is safer, more effective, or makes a major contribution to patient care.

Current wording

In addition, if a product receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has orphan designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same disease or condition for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient product quantity for the orphan patient population. Exclusive marketing rights in the United States may also be unavailable if we or our collaborators seek approval for a disease or condition broader than the orphan designated disease or condition and may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective. Even if we obtain orphan drug designation, we may not be the first to obtain marketing approval for any particular orphan disease or condition due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product candidate, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is safer, more effective, or makes a major contribution to patient care.

Previous wording

We received orphan medicinal product designation for atacicept in the EU in October 2024. In the EU, a medicinal product may receive orphan designation under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000. This applies to products that are intended for a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition and either (1) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (2) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would be unlikely to generate sufficient returns in the EU to justify the necessary investment in its development. Moreover, in order to obtain orphan designation in the EU it is necessary to demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU or, if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. Orphan medicinal product designation entitles an applicant to incentives such fee reductions or fee waivers, protocol assistance, and access to the centralized marketing authorization procedure. Marketing authorization for an orphan drug leads to a 10-year period of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication, which means that the EMA cannot accept another marketing authorization application or accept an application to extend for a similar product and the European Commission cannot grant a marketing authorization for the same indication for a period of ten years. A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed PIP. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. Orphan medicinal product designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. This period may, however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation, for example because the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify continued market exclusivity. In addition, a marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication during the 10 year period of market exclusivity on an individual basis in very select cases, such as with consent from the marketing authorization holder, if the manufacturer of the original orphan medicinal product is unable to supply sufficient quantities of the authorized product or if the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the original orphan medicinal p…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

We received orphan medicinal product designation for atacicept in the European Union (EU) in October 2024. In the EU, a medicinal product may receive orphan designation under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000 if its sponsor can establish that (i) the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition and (ii) either (1) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (2) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would be unlikely to generate sufficient returns in the EU to justify the necessary investment in its development. Moreover, in order to obtain orphan designation in the EU it is necessary to demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU or, if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. The application for orphan designation must be submitted before the application for marketing authorization. Orphan medicinal product designation entitles an applicant to financial incentives such fee reductions or fee waivers, protocol assistance, and access to the centralized marketing authorization procedure. Moreover, upon grant of a marketing authorization and assuming the requirements for orphan designation are also met at the time the marketing authorization is granted, orphan medicinal product are entitled to a ten-year period of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication, which means that the EMA cannot accept another marketing authorization application or accept an application to extend for a similar product and the European Commission cannot grant a marketing authorization for the same indication for a period of ten years. A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed pediatric investigation plan (PIP). No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. Orphan medicinal product designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. This period may, however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation, for example because the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify continued market exclusivity. In addition, a marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication during the 10 year period of market exclusivity on an individua…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

If a drug or biologic is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition or disease, and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need, the product may qualify for FDA Fast Track designation, for which sponsors must apply. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation. Although we have received Fast Track designation for the investigation of MAU868 for the prevention of BK viremia in renal transplant and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

Current wording

If a drug or biologic is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition or disease, whether alone or in combination with other drugs or biologics, and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need for such condition or disease, the product candidate may qualify for FDA Fast Track designation, for which sponsors must apply. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation. Fast Track designation allows for more frequent communication with the FDA and the potential for rolling review of a marketing application. Although we have received Fast Track designation for the investigation of MAU868 for the prevention of BK viremia in renal transplant and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

Previous wording

We may in the future seek an accelerated approval for atacicept, MAU868, VT-109, or future product candidates we may develop. For example, if the results from our Phase 3 trial of atacicept in patients with IgAN are positive, we may seek accelerated approval with the FDA based on this trial, which may not be granted. Under the accelerated approval program, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product candidate designed to treat a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. For example, UPCR is an accepted surrogate primary endpoint for clinical trials in IgAN, which could allow for a faster path to commercialization than rate of change/slope in eGFR. We may seek accelerated approval based on the UPCR endpoint. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. Use of the accelerated approval pathway would entail submission of a BLA under Subpart E of the FDA regulations with week 36 UPCR surrogate endpoint data while completing the Phase 3 trial to collect eGFR data to demonstrate improvement in kidney function. If granted, accelerated approval is usually contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to complete ongoing trials and/or conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit and to report regularly to the FDA on progress of such trials. Additionally, unless and until converted to full approval at the time of satisfying the conditions of any accelerated approval letter, the sponsor must submit any promotional materials for the accelerated approval drug to FDA at least 30 days prior to use. Third-party payors may refuse to provide coverage or reimbursement for the drug until the confirmatory studies are complete. Additionally, if such post-approval studies fail to confirm the drug’s clinical benefit, the FDA may withdraw its approval of the drug.

Current wording

We may in the future seek an accelerated approval for atacicept, MAU868, VT-109, or future product candidates we may develop. For example, if the results from our Phase 3 trial of atacicept in patients with IgAN are positive, we may seek accelerated approval with the FDA based on results from this trial, which may not be granted. Under the accelerated approval program, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product candidate designed to treat a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. For example, endpoints assessing changes in UPCR have been accepted by FDA as surrogate primary endpoints for clinical trials of drugs targeting patients with IgAN, while assessments of eGFR slope have been viewed by regulators as the more conventional endpoint assessing clinical benefit in IgAN patients. We may seek accelerated approval based on the UPCR endpoint while completing the Phase 3 trial to collect eGFR data to demonstrate improvement in kidney function. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. If granted, accelerated approval is usually contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to complete ongoing trials and/or conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit and to report regularly to the FDA on progress of such trials. Additionally, unless and until converted to full approval at the time of satisfying the conditions of any accelerated approval letter, the sponsor must submit any promotional materials for the accelerated approval drug to FDA at least 30 days prior to use. Third-party payors may refuse to provide coverage or reimbursement for the drug until the confirmatory studies are complete. Additionally, if such post-approval studies fail to confirm the drug’s clinical benefit, or if the product sponsor fails to complete any confirmatory studies in a time…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Prior to seeking accelerated approval for atacicept, MAU868, or VT-109, we intend to seek feedback from the FDA and will otherwise evaluate our ability to seek and receive accelerated approval. There can be no assurance that after our evaluation of the feedback and other factors we will decide to pursue or submit a BLA, for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Similarly, there can be no assurance that after subsequent FDA feedback we will continue to pursue or apply for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval, even if we initially decide to do so. Furthermore, if we decide to submit an application for accelerated approval or receive an expedited regulatory designation, and although we have received breakthrough therapy designation from the FDA for atacicept, there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted or that any expedited development, review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could also require us to conduct further studies prior to considering our application or granting approval of any type. A failure to obtain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for atacicept, MAU868, or VT-109 would result in a longer time period to commercialization of such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of atacicept, MAU868, or VT-109 and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.

Current wording

Prior to seeking accelerated approval for atacicept, MAU868, or VT-109, we intend to seek feedback from the FDA and will otherwise evaluate our ability to seek and receive accelerated approval. There can be no assurance that after our evaluation of the feedback and other factors we will decide to pursue or submit a BLA, for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Similarly, there can be no assurance that after subsequent FDA feedback we will continue to pursue or apply for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval, even if we initially decide to do so. Furthermore, if we decide to submit an application for accelerated approval, there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted or that any expedited review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could also require us to conduct further studies prior to considering our application or granting approval of any type. A failure to obtain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited review or approval for atacicept, MAU868, or VT-109 would result in a longer time period to commercialization of such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of atacicept, MAU868, or VT-109 and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.

Previous wording

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the Affordable Care Act), signed into law on March 23, 2010, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA), which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty.

Current wording

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the Affordable Care Act), signed into law on March 23, 2010, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA), which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product.

Previous wording

In the European Union, upon receiving a marketing authorization, innovative medicinal products are generally entitled to receive eight years of data exclusivity and ten years of market exclusivity. Data exclusivity, if granted, prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic application or biosimilar application for eight years from the date of authorization of the innovative product, after which a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization application can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the European Union until ten years have elapsed from the initial marketing authorization of the reference product in the European Union. The overall ten-year period may, occasionally, be extended for a further year to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the European Union’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical/biological entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. In the EU, there is a special regime for biosimilars, or biological medicinal products that are similar to a reference medicinal product but that do not meet the definition of a generic medicinal product. For such products, the results of appropriate preclinical or clinical trials must be provided in support of an application for marketing authorization. Guidelines from the EMA detail the type of quantity of supplementary data to be provided for different types of biological product.

Current wording

In the European Union, upon receiving a marketing authorization, innovative medicinal products are generally entitled to receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. Data exclusivity, if granted, prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic or biosimilar application for eight years from the date of authorization of the innovative product, after which a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization application can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the European Union until ten years have elapsed from the initial marketing authorization of the reference product in the European Union. The overall ten-year period may, occasionally, be extended for a further year to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the European Union’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical/biological entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. In the EU, there is a special regime for biosimilars, or biological medicinal products that are similar to a reference medicinal product but that do not meet the definition of a generic medicinal product. For such products, the results of appropriate preclinical or clinical trials must be provided in support of an application for marketing authorization. Guidelines from the EMA detail the type of quantity of supplementary data to be provided for different types of biological product.

Previous wording

We intend to seek approval to market atacicept, MAU868, and VT-109 in the United States, the EU, and certain foreign jurisdictions. If we obtain approval in one or more foreign jurisdictions for atacicept, MAU868, or VT-109, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those jurisdictions. In some foreign countries, particularly those in the EU, the pricing of drugs is subject to governmental control and other market regulations which could put pressure on the pricing and usage of atacicept, MAU868, or VT-109. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after obtaining marketing approval of a product candidate. In addition, market acceptance and sales of a product candidate will depend significantly on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors for the product candidate and may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures.

Current wording

We intend to seek approval to market atacicept, MAU868, and VT-109 in the United States, the EU, and certain foreign jurisdictions. If we obtain approval in one or more foreign jurisdictions for atacicept, MAU868, or VT-109, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those jurisdictions. In some foreign countries, particularly those in the EU, the pricing of drugs is subject to governmental control and other market regulations which could put pressure on the pricing and usage of atacicept, MAU868, or VT-109. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after obtaining marketing approval of a product candidate. In addition, in the United States, the EU, and other jurisdictions, market acceptance and sales of an approved product candidate will depend significantly on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors.

Previous wording

The availability and extent of coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors, including government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers, managed care organizations and other third-party payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford expensive treatments. If we obtain marketing approval of a product candidate, sales of such product will depend substantially, both in the United States and internationally, on the extent to which the costs of the product will be covered and reimbursed by third-party payors. If reimbursement is not available, or is available only at inadequate levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidates we develop. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize an adequate return on our investment. Coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. If coverage and reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we may not successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.

Current wording

The availability and extent of coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors, including government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers, managed care organizations and other third-party payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford treatments. If we obtain marketing approval of a product candidate, sales of such product will depend substantially, both in the United States and internationally, on the extent to which the costs of the product will be covered and reimbursed by third-party payors. If reimbursement is not available, or is available only at inadequate levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidates we develop. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be sufficient to allow us to establish or maintain pricing to support an adequate return on our investment. Coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. If coverage and reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we may not successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.

Previous wording

There is significant uncertainty related to third-party payor coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, for example, principal decisions about reimbursement for new products are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). CMS decides whether and to what extent a new product will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare, and private third-party payors often follow CMS’s decisions regarding coverage and reimbursement to a substantial degree. However, one third-party payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product candidate does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product candidate. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. As a result, the coverage determination process is often time-consuming and costly. This process will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product to each third-party payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:

Current wording

There is significant uncertainty related to third-party payor coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, for example, principal decisions about reimbursement for new products under Medicare are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Private third-party payors often follow CMS’s decisions regarding coverage and reimbursement to a substantial degree. However, one third-party payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product candidate does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product candidate. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. As a result, the coverage determination process is often time-consuming and costly. This process will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product to each third-party payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance.

Previous wording

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Governmental payors, as well as other third-party payors, including pharmacy benefit managers, have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular products and requiring substitutions of generic products and/or biosimilars. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Further, such payors are increasingly examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost effectiveness of medical product candidates. There may be especially significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific product candidates on an approved list, known as a formulary, which might not include all FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. We may need to conduct expensive pharmaco-economic studies to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost effectiveness of our product. Nonetheless, atacicept, MAU868, VT-109, or any future product candidates we may develop may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be.

Current wording

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Governmental payors, as well as other third-party payors, including pharmacy benefit managers, have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular products and requiring substitutions of generic products and/or biosimilars. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Further, such payors are increasingly examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost effectiveness of medical product candidates. There may be especially significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific product candidates on an approved list, known as a formulary, which might not include all FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. We may need to conduct expensive pharmaco-economic studies to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost effectiveness of our product. Nonetheless, atacicept, MAU868, VT-109, or any future product candidates we may develop may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, whether the level of reimbursement will be adequate.

Previous wording

Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost containment initiatives in Europe, Canada and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of therapeutics such as atacicept, MAU868, VT-109, or any future product candidates we may develop. In many countries, particularly the countries of the EU, medical product prices are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after a product receives marketing approval. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical study that compares the cost-effectiveness of atacicept, MAU868, VT-109 or any future product candidates we may develop to other available therapies. The 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 those representing the larger markets. The HTA process is the procedure to assess therapeutic, economic and societal impact of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country. The outcome of an HTA 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 currently varies between EU Member States. In December 2021, Regulation No. 2021/2282 on HTA, amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted in the EU. This Regulation, which entered into force in January 2022 began to apply on January 12, 2025 through a phased implementation. It is intended to boost cooperation among EU Member States in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products, and providing the basis for cooperation at EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. The Regulation will permit EU Member States to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. If we are unable to maintain favorable pricing and reimbursement status in EU Member States for product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval, any anticipated revenue from and growth prospects for those products in the EU could be negatively affected. In general, product prices under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries al…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Outside the United States, pharmaceutical sales are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost containment initiatives in Europe, Canada and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of therapeutics such as atacicept, MAU868, VT-109, or any future product candidates we may develop. In many countries, particularly the countries of the EU, medical product prices are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after a product receives marketing approval. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical study that compares the cost-effectiveness of atacicept, MAU868, VT-109 or any future product candidates we may develop to other available therapies. The 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 those representing the larger markets. The HTA process is the procedure to assess therapeutic, economic and societal impact of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country. The outcome of an HTA 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 currently varies between EU member states. In December 2021, Regulation No. 2021/2282 on HTA, amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted in the EU. This Regulation, which entered into force in January 2022 began to apply on January 12, 2025 through a phased implementation. It is intended to boost cooperation among EU member states in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products, and providing the basis for cooperation at EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. The Regulation will permit EU member states to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU member states will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. If we are unable to maintain favorable pricing and reimbursement status in EU member states for product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval, any anticipated revenue from and growth prospects for those products in the EU could be negatively affected. In general, product prices under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges and amendments to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. For example, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) was signed into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in Affordable Care Act 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 through a newly established manufacturer discount program. It is possible that the Affordable Care Act will be subject to judicial or congressional challenges in the future. It is also unclear how any healthcare reform measures of the Trump administration will affect the Affordable Care Act and our business.

Current wording

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges and amendments to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. For example, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) was signed into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in Affordable Care Act 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 through a newly established manufacturer discount program. It is possible that the Affordable Care Act will be subject to judicial or congressional challenges in the future.

Previous wording

Moreover, 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 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. For example, the IRA, among other things, (1) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain single-source biologics covered under Medicare that have been on the market for at least 11 years (the “Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program”) and (2) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. These provisions began to take effect progressively in fiscal year 2023. On August 15, 2024, HHS announced the agreed-upon reimbursement price of the first ten drugs that will be 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.

Current wording

Moreover, 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 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. For example, the IRA, among other things, (1) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain single-source biologics covered under Medicare that have been on the market for at least 11 years (the “Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program”) and (2) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. These provisions began to take effect progressively in fiscal year 2023. On August 15, 2024, HHS announced the agreed-upon reimbursement price of the first ten drugs that will be 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.

Previous wording

Additional health reform measures may continue and affect our business in unknown ways, including proposed policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government agencies, which could create additional uncertainty for our business. Additionally, in its June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (Loper Bright), 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. Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care related legislation that could impact the drug approval process and make changes to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program created under the IRA.

Current wording

Additional health reform measures may continue and affect our business in unknown ways, including proposed policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government agencies, which could create additional uncertainty for our business. Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care related legislation that could impact the drug approval process and make changes to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program created under the IRA.

Previous wording

We expect that the Affordable Care Act, the IRA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, particularly in light of the recent U.S. Presidential and Congressional elections, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. 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, achieve and sustain profitability or commercialize atacicept, MAU868, VT-109, or any future product candidates we may develop.

Current wording

We expect that the Affordable Care Act, the IRA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, particularly under the Trump administration, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. 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, achieve and sustain profitability or commercialize atacicept, MAU868, VT-109, or any future product candidates we may develop.

Previous wording

In addition, FDA and comparable foreign regulations and guidance may be revised or reinterpreted by the competent authorities 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 review times for atacicept, MAU868, VT-109, or future product candidates we may develop. 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:

Current wording

FDA and comparable foreign regulations and guidance may be revised or reinterpreted by the competent authorities 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 review times for atacicept, MAU868, VT-109, or future product candidates we may develop. 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:

Previous wording

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. As an example, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has evolved. The Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 (CTR), which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive (CTD), 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 foresaw a three-year transition period that ended on January 31, 2025. Since this date, all new or ongoing trials are subject to the provisions of the CTR. Compliance with the CTR requirements by us and our third-party service providers, such as CROs, may impact our developments plans. In light of the entry into application of the CTR on January 31, 2022, we were required to transition clinical trials for which we have obtained regulatory approvals in accordance with the CTD to the regulatory framework of the CTR. Transition of clinical trials governed by the CTD to the CTR was required for clinical trials which had at least one site active in the EU on January 30, 2025. A timely transitioning application was filed with the competent authorities of EU Member States through the Clinical Trials Information Systems in order to continue the clinical trial past January 30, 2025. It is currently unclear to what extent the UK will seek to align its regulations with the EU in the future. The UK regulatory framework in relation to clinical trials is derived from existing EU legislation (as implemented into UK law, through secondary legislation). On January 17, 2022, the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) launched an eight-week consultation on reframing the UK legislation for clinical trials. The UK Government published its response to the consultation on March 21, 2023 confirming that it would bring forward changes to the legislation. These resulting legislative amendments will determine how closely the UK regulations will align with the CTR. Failure of the UK to closely align its regulations with the EU may have an effect on the cost of conducting clinical trials in the UK as opposed to other countries and/or make it harder to seek a marketing authorization for the Company’s product candidates on the basis of clinical trials conduct…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. As an example, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has evolved. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR), which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive (CTD), became applicable on January 31, 2022. While the CTD required a separate clinical trial application (CTA), to be submitted in each member state in which the clinical trial takes place, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application for multi-center trials. 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 foresaw a three-year transition period that ended on January 31, 2025. Since this date, all new or ongoing trials are subject to the provisions of the CTR. Compliance with the CTR requirements by us and our third-party service providers, such as CROs, may impact our developments plans. In light of the entry into application of the CTR on January 31, 2022, we were required to transition clinical trials for which we have obtained regulatory approvals in accordance with the CTD to the regulatory framework of the CTR. Transition of clinical trials governed by the CTD to the CTR was required for clinical trials which had at least one site active in the EU on January 30, 2025. A timely transitioning application was filed with the competent authorities of EU member states through the Clinical Trials Information Systems (CTIS) in order to continue the clinical trial past January 30, 2025.

Previous wording

We are subject to stringent and evolving U.S. and foreign laws, regulations and rules, contractual obligations, industry standards, policies and other obligations related to data privacy and security. Our actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could lead to regulatory investigations or actions; litigation (including class claims) and mass arbitration demands; fines and penalties; disruptions of our business operations; reputational harm; loss of revenue or profits; and other adverse business consequences.

Current wording

We are subject to stringent and evolving U.S. and foreign laws, regulations and rules, contractual obligations, industry standards, policies and other obligations related to data privacy and security. Our actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could lead to regulatory investigations or actions; litigation (including class actions) and mass arbitration demands; fines and penalties; disruptions of our business operations; reputational harm; loss of revenue or profits; and other adverse business consequences.

Previous wording

In the ordinary course of business, we collect, receive, store, process, generate, use, transfer, disclose, make accessible, protect, secure, dispose of, transmit, and share (collectively, process) personal data and other sensitive information, including proprietary and confidential business information, trade secrets, intellectual property, information we collect about trial participants in connection with clinical trials, and sensitive third-party information (collectively, sensitive information). Our data processing activities subject us to numerous obligations relating to data privacy and security, such as various laws, regulations, guidance, industry standards, external and internal privacy and security policies, contractual obligations and other obligations relating to data privacy and security.

Current wording

In the ordinary course of business, we collect, receive, store, process, generate, use, transfer, disclose, make accessible, protect, secure, dispose of, transmit, and share (collectively, process) personal data and other sensitive information, including proprietary and confidential business information, trade secrets, intellectual property, information we collect about trial participants in connection with clinical trials in the U.S. and abroad, and sensitive third-party information (collectively, sensitive information). Our data processing activities subject us to numerous obligations relating to data privacy and security, such as various state, federal, and foreign laws, regulations, guidance, industry standards, external and internal privacy and security policies, contractual obligations and other obligations relating to data privacy and security.

Previous wording

Outside the United States, an increasing number of laws, regulations and industry standards govern data privacy and security. For example, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR) and the UK’s Data Protection Act 2018 (UK GDPR) (collectively, GDPR), Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), Australia’s Privacy Act, India’s Information Technology Act, China’s Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) and South Korea’s Personal Information Protection Act impose strict requirements for processing of personal data, including clinical trials participants and other individuals. For instance, companies that violate the GDPR can face private litigation related to processing of personal data brought by classes of data subjects or consumer protection organizations authorized at law to represent their interests, temporary or definitive prohibitions on data processing and other corrective actions, fines of up to the greater of 20 million Euros under the EU GDPR / 17.5 million pounds under the UK GDPR, or 4% of their worldwide annual revenue, whichever is higher. Furthermore, China’s PIPL imposes a set of specific obligations on covered businesses in connection with their processing and transfer of personal data and imposes fines of up to RMB 50 million or 5% of the prior year’s total annual revenue of the violator.

Current wording

Outside the United States, our operations may be subject to an increasing number of laws, regulations and industry standards governing data privacy and security. For example, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR) and the UK’s Data Protection Act 2018 (UK GDPR) (collectively, GDPR), Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), Australia’s Privacy Act, India’s Information Technology Act, China’s Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) and South Korea’s Personal Information Protection Act impose strict requirements for processing of personal data, including clinical trials participants and other individuals. For instance, companies that violate the GDPR can face private litigation related to processing of personal data brought by classes of data subjects or consumer protection organizations authorized at law to represent their interests, temporary or definitive prohibitions on data processing and other corrective actions, fines of up to the greater of 20 million Euros under the EU GDPR / 17.5 million pounds under the UK GDPR, or 4% of their worldwide annual revenue, whichever is higher. Furthermore, China’s PIPL imposes a set of specific obligations on covered businesses in connection with their processing and transfer of personal data and imposes fines of up to RMB 50 million or 5% of the prior year’s total annual revenue of the violator.

Previous wording

In the United States federal, state and local governments have enacted numerous data privacy and security laws, including data breach notification laws, personal data privacy laws, consumer protection laws (e.g. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), other similar laws (e.g. wiretapping laws). For example, HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, imposes specific requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information.

Current wording

In the United States federal, state and local governments have enacted numerous data privacy and security laws, including data breach notification laws, personal data privacy laws, consumer protection laws (e.g. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), other similar laws (e.g. wiretapping laws). For example, HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, imposes, among other things, specific requirements relating to the privacy, security, and transmission and breach reporting of individually identifiable health information.

Previous wording

Additionally, in the past few years, numerous U.S. states—including California, Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, and Utah—have enacted comprehensive privacy laws that impose certain obligations on covered businesses, including providing specific disclosures in privacy notices and affording residents with certain rights concerning their personal data. As applicable, such rights may include the right to access, correct, or delete certain personal data, and to opt-out of certain data processing activities, such as targeted advertising, profiling, and automated decision-making. The exercise of these rights may impact our business and ability to provide our products and services. Certain states also impose stricter requirements for processing certain personal data, including sensitive information, such as conducting data privacy impact assessments. These state laws allow for statutory fines for noncompliance. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), (collectively, the CCPA), applies to personal data of consumers, business representatives, and employees who are California residents, and requires covered businesses to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices and honor requests of such individuals to exercise certain privacy rights. The CCPA also provides for fines and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. Although there are limited exemptions for clinical trial data under the CCPA, the CCPA increases compliance costs and potential liability with respect to other personal data we maintain about California residents. Similar laws have been enacted or are being considered in several other states, as well as at the federal and local levels, and we expect more states to pass similar laws in the future. While certain of these laws exempt or may exempt data processed in the context of clinical trials, these developments may further complicate compliance efforts, and increase legal risk and compliance costs for us and the third parties with whom we work.

Current wording

Additionally, numerous U.S. states have enacted comprehensive privacy laws that impose certain obligations on covered businesses, including providing specific disclosures in privacy notices and affording residents with certain rights concerning their personal data. As applicable, such rights may include the right to access, correct, or delete certain personal data, and to opt-out of certain data processing activities, such as targeted advertising, profiling, and automated decision-making. The exercise of these rights may impact our business and ability to provide our products and services. Certain states also impose stricter requirements for processing certain personal data, including sensitive information, such as conducting data privacy impact assessments. These state laws allow for statutory fines for noncompliance. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (collectively, the CCPA), requires covered businesses that process the personal data of California residents to, among other things: to (i) provide specific disclosures to California residents in privacy notices; (ii) honor requests of such individuals to exercise certain privacy rights; and (iii) enter into specific contractual provisions with service providers that process California resident personal data on the business’s behalf. The CCPA also provides for fines and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. Although there are limited exemptions for clinical trial data under the CCPA, the CCPA increases compliance costs and potential liability with respect to other personal data we maintain about California residents. Similar laws have been enacted or are being considered in several other states, as well as at the federal and local levels, and we expect more states to pass similar laws in the future. While certain of these laws exempt or may exempt data processed in the context of clinical trials, these developments may further complicate compliance efforts, and increase legal risk and compliance costs for us and the third parties with whom we work.

Previous wording

We may at times fail (or be perceived to have failed) in our effort to comply with our data privacy and security obligations. Moreover, despite our efforts, our personnel or third-party partners (such as contract research organizations and clinical trial sites) may fail (or be perceived to have failed) to comply with such obligations, which could negatively impact our business operations. If we or our third-party partners fail, or are perceived to have failed, to address or comply with applicable data privacy and security obligations, we could face significant consequences. These consequences may include, but are not limited to, government enforcement actions (e.g., investigations, fines, penalties, audits, inspections, and similar); litigation (including class-related claims) and mass arbitration demands; additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; bans on processing personal data; orders to destroy or not use personal data; and imprisonment of company officials. In particular, plaintiffs have become increasingly more active in bringing privacy-related claims against companies, including class claims and mass arbitration demands. Some of these claims allow for the recovery of statutory damages on a per violation basis, and, if viable, carry the potential for monumental statutory damages, depending on the volume of data and the number of violations. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, or financial condition, including but not limited to: interruptions or stoppages in our business operations (including, as relevant, clinical trials); inability to process sensitive information or to operate in certain jurisdictions; limited ability to develop or commercialize our products; expenditure of time and resources to defend any claim or inquiry; adverse publicity; or substantial changes to our business model or operations.

Current wording

We may at times fail (or be perceived to have failed) in our effort to comply with our data privacy and security obligations. Moreover, despite our efforts, our personnel or third-party partners (such as contract research organizations and clinical trial sites) may fail (or be perceived to have failed) to comply with such obligations, which could negatively impact our business operations. If we or our third-party partners fail, or are perceived to have failed, to address or comply with applicable data privacy and security obligations, we could face significant consequences. These consequences may include, but are not limited to, government enforcement actions (e.g., investigations, fines, penalties, audits, inspections, and similar); litigation (including class actions) and mass arbitration demands; additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; bans on processing personal data; orders to destroy or not use personal data; and imprisonment of company officials. In particular, plaintiffs have become increasingly more active in bringing privacy-related claims against companies, including class claims and mass arbitration demands. Some of these claims allow for the recovery of statutory damages on a per violation basis, and, if viable, carry the potential for monumental statutory damages, depending on the volume of data and the number of violations. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, or financial condition, including but not limited to: interruptions or stoppages in our business operations (including, as relevant, clinical trials); inability to process sensitive information or to operate in certain jurisdictions; limited ability to develop or commercialize our products; expenditure of time and resources to defend any claim or inquiry; adverse publicity; or substantial changes to our business model or operations.

Previous wording

As of March 31, 2025, we had 152 full-time employees, including 100 employees engaged in research and development. In order to successfully implement our development and commercialization plans and strategies, and as we continue to operate as a public company, we expect to need additional managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial and other personnel. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Current wording

As of June 30, 2025, we had 192 full-time employees, including 118 employees engaged in research and development. In order to successfully implement our development and commercialization plans and strategies, and as we continue to operate as a public company, we expect to need additional managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial and other personnel. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including: