Spero Therapeutics, Inc.
For the period ended Jun 30, 2025. Filed Aug 12, 2025.
View on SEC.govAbout this filing
A company's report for each of its first three quarters. The financial statements are not audited. It shows how the business has moved since the last annual report, and what management says changed.
Jun 30, 2025 · Filed Aug 12, 2025
SPRO$1.03+1.0%Stored close · as of Nov 6, 2026
What changed in Risk Factors?
Read the current filingPrevious report: 10-Q
Period ended 2025-03-31; filed 2025-05-13.
0000950170-25-070380
Item 1A. Risk FactorsUnregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of ProceedsDefaults Upon Senior SecuritiesMine Safety DisclosuresCurrent report: 10-Q
Period ended 2025-06-30; filed 2025-08-12.
0000950170-25-107388
Item 1A. Risk FactorsUnregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of ProceedsDefaults Upon Senior SecuritiesMine Safety DisclosuresThe baseline is this issuer’s latest earlier reporting period of the same form that was filed before the current report. A previous 10-Q is a different quarter, not a year-over-year comparison. Amendments are excluded.
Compared 393 previous paragraphs and 402 current paragraphs.
328 unchanged; 53 reworded; 19 added; 11 removed; 1 previous and 2 current paragraphs rearranged.
Tables are not compared: 0 previous and 0 current tables excluded. Dates, whitespace, punctuation and numbering changes are ignored; changes to financial figures remain significant.
A changed paragraph is not evidence that risk increased or decreased. An unchanged paragraph does not establish that risk stayed the same.
Added paragraphs (19)
Current report
In June 2024, as mandated by the FDCA, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining the general requirements for DAPs. Unlike most guidance documents issued by the FDA, the DAP guidance when finalized will have the force of law because FDORA specifically dictates that the form and manner for submission of DAPs are specified in FDA guidance. On January 27, 2025, in response to an executive order issued by President Trump on January 21, 2025 on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs, the FDA removed the draft DAP guidance from its website. That action, along with similar actions by the Trump Administration to remove many other healthcare webpages, is currently the subject of ongoing litigation. On July 3, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the administration’s actions to remove these webpages, including the draft DAP guidance, is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court ordered the restoration of many of these webpages. In late July 2025, the FDA restored the draft DAP guidance to its website with a statement that “information on this page may be modified and/or removed in the future subject to the terms of the court’s order and implemented consistent with applicable law.” Accordingly, in light of these ongoing actions, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the draft DAP guidance and how the FDA will consider DAPs in connection with its review of marketing applications.
Current report
If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to fund and undertake development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we fail to enter into collaborations and do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market and our business may be materially and adversely affected.
Current report
On June 17, 2025, the FDA announced the creation of a new voucher program to expedite the development and approval of new drug products. Vouchers issued under the new program, which is known as the Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher (“CNPV”) Program, may reportedly be redeemed by sponsors to shorten the review time of an NDA from approximately 10 to 12 months to one to two months. The FDA has indicated that the new CNPV process will convene experts from the FDA’s offices for a team-based review rather than using the standard review system of a drug application being sent to numerous FDA offices. Clinical information will be reviewed by a multidisciplinary team of physicians and scientists who will pre-review the submitted information and convene for a one-day meeting. Vouchers under this program will reportedly be given to companies aligned with U.S. national priorities. As with the FDA’s other programs for expediting review and approval of new drug products, even if we were to avail ourselves of this new program, there is no guarantee it would result in approval of our marketing applications or that such approval, if granted, would be on an expedited basis.
Current report
The FDA and Congress may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. This may be particularly true in light of a decision from the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in September 2021. In Catalyst Pharms, Inc. v. Becerra(“Catalyst”), it was held that, for the purpose of determining the scope of orphan drug exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” in the statute means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the FDA to mean the “indication or use.” Thus, the court concluded, orphan drug exclusivity applies to the entire designated disease or condition rather than the approved “indication or use.” Although there have been legislative proposals to overrule this decision, they have not been enacted into law. On January 23, 2023, the FDA announced that, in matters beyond the scope of the Catalyst court order, the FDA will continue to apply its existing regulations tying orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which the orphan drug is approved. More recently however, on February 14, 2025, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. fully embraced the reasoning of the Catalyst decision in another decision challenging the scope of orphan drug exclusivity. On April 17, 2025, the FDA appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The implications of this decision, and its impact on the FDA’s implementation of the Orphan Drug Act, are unclear at this point.
Current report
Further, we could face heightened risks with respect to obtaining marketing authorization in the United Kingdom as a result of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, commonly referred to as Brexit. The United Kingdom is no longer part of the European Single Market and EU Customs Union. As of January 1, 2025, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) is responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the U.K. market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland). On April 28, 2025, the U.K. Parliament adopted amendments to improve and strengthen the United Kingdom’s clinical trials regulatory regime; they will take effect on April 28, 2026. These changes were needed since the current U.K. requirements are based upon the now-repealed EU Clinical Trials Directive (2001/20/EC), which has been replaced by the European Clinical Trials Regulation (Regulation EU No 536/2014). Since the United Kingdom left the EU prior to the date on which the EU CTR took effect, the U.K. legal framework did not benefit from the same revisions as occurred at EU level.
Current report
The first cycle of negotiations for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program commenced in the summer of 2023. On August 15, 2024, DHHS published the results of the first Medicare drug price negotiations for ten selected drugs that treat a range of conditions, including diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. The prices of these ten drugs will become effective January 1, 2026. On January 17, 2025, CMS announced its selection of 15 additional drugs covered by Part D for the second cycle of negotiations by February 1, 2025. While there had been some questions about the Trump administration’s position on this program, CMS issued a public statement on January 29, 2025, declaring that lowering the cost of prescription drugs is a top priority of the new administration and CMS is committed to considering opportunities to bring greater transparency in the negotiation program. The second cycle of negotiations with participating drug companies will occur during 2025, and any negotiated prices for this second set of drugs will be effective starting January 1, 2027.
Current report
On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co. filed a lawsuit against DHHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, the PhRMA, Astellas, Novo Nordisk, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Teva also filed lawsuits in various courts with constitutional and Administrative Procedure Act claims against the DHHS and CMS. There have been various decisions by the courts considering these cases since they were filed. The DHHS has generally won the substantive disputes in these cases or succeeded in getting claims dismissed for lack of standing. Most of these cases are now on appeal. On October 30, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral argument in three of these cases. In April 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard argument in an additional three cases. On May 8, 2025, the Third Circuit rejected AstraZeneca’s challenge to the Medicare price negotiation program, finding that the program did not violate the company’s due process rights under the constitution since there is no protected property interest in selling goods to Medicare beneficiaries at a price higher than what the government is willing to pay in reimbursement. We expect that litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. Accordingly, while it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated, we cannot predict with certainty what impact any federal or state health reforms will have on us, but such changes could impose new or more stringent regulatory requirements on our activities or result in reduced reimbursement for our products, any of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Current report
More recently, on April 15, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order which directs DHHS to take steps to reduce the prices of pharmaceutical products. The order repeats many of the proposals advanced during the first Trump administration, including directing the FDA to streamline and improve its existing drug importation program so as to make it easier for states to obtain approval without sacrificing the safety or quality of drug products. Other provisions of the order relate to the 340B program. Specifically, one provision calls on the Secretary of DHHS to determine the hospital acquisition cost for covered outpatient drugs at hospital outpatient departments and to consider and propose any appropriate adjustments for Medicare payment. The other provision directs DHHS to condition grant funding to certain health centers on those centers passing through the 340B discounts they receive on insulin and injectable epinephrine products to patients who meet certain requirements. With respect to the IRA’s Medicare drug pricing program, the order, among other things, calls for alignment in “the treatment of small molecule prescription drugs with that of biological products, ending the distortion that undermines relative investment in small molecule prescription drugs, coupled with other reforms to prevent any increase in overall costs to Medicare and its beneficiaries.”
Current report
Further, on May 12, 2025, President Trump issued an additional executive order calling on pharmaceutical manufacturers to voluntarily reduce the prices of medicines in the United States. The Order directs the Secretary of DHHS to communicate most-favored-nation (“MFN”) price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers to bring prices in line with comparably developed nations. The executive order further provides that if such actions do not lower the costs of pharmaceuticals, the Secretary of DHHS would pursue other actions, including proposing a rulemaking that imposes MFN pricing in the United States. Subsequently, on May 20, 2025, HHS indicated that the proposed MFN pricing will apply only to brand products without generic or biosimilar competition and the reference foreign countries will include only those in which the branded product similarly does not have generic or biosimilar competition. Second, DHHS indicated that the MFN target price will be the lowest price in a country that is a member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) with a gross domestic product (“GDP”), per capita of at least 60% of the U.S. GDP per capita. Based on previous estimates, there are likely at least 22 OECD countries that would satisfy this criterion. The implications of these actions remain unclear and are likely to result in litigation if the administration pursues an MFN regulatory pricing requirement.
Current report
At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing 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. This is increasingly true with respect to products approved pursuant to the accelerated approval pathway. State Medicaid programs and other payers are developing strategies and implementing significant coverage barriers, or refusing to cover these products outright, arguing that accelerated approval drugs have insufficient or limited evidence despite meeting the FDA’s standards for accelerated approval.
Current report
For example, the loss of FDA leadership and personnel could lead to disruptions and delays in FDA guidance, review and approval of our product candidates. Pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order 14210, “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative,” the Secretary of DHHS announced on March 27, 2025, a reorganization and Reduction in Force (“RIF”) across the Department of approximately 20,000 employees (82,000 to 62,000), with FDA’s workforce of approximately 20,000 to decrease by 3,500 full-time employees. Subsequently, the FDA indicated that roughly a quarter of those employees who received RIF notices had been reinstated. On July 14, 2025, following litigation reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, the administration began to carry out these layoffs across DHHS, including the FDA. There are also ongoing deliberations within the administration and Congress over potentially substantial proposed cuts to the overall budget for DHHS and funding of the FDA for the 2026 federal fiscal year.
Current report
While the FDA’s review of marketing applications and other activities for new drugs and biologics is largely funded through the user fee program established under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”), it remains unclear how the administration’s RIF and budget cuts will impact this program and the ability of the FDA to provide guidance and review our product candidates in a timely manner. For example, while the FDA RIF did not reportedly specifically target FDA reviewers, many operations, administrative and policy staff that help support such reviews were affected and those losses could lead to delays in PDUFA reviews and related activities. As of July 15, 2025, there has been at least one report in which the FDA failed to meet a PDUFA goal date for approval of an NDA due to heavy workload and limited resources. In addition, while currently unclear, there is a risk that the RIF and budget cutbacks could threaten the integrity of the PDUFA program itself. That is because, for the FDA to obligate user fees collected under PDUFA in the first place, a certain amount of non-user fee appropriations must be spent on the process for the review of applications plus certain other costs during the same fiscal year.
Current report
There is also substantial uncertainty as to how regulatory reform measures being implemented by the Trump Administration across the government will impact the FDA and other federal agencies with jurisdiction over our activities. For example, since taking office, the President has issued a number of executive orders that could have a significant impact on the manner in which the FDA conducts its operations and engages in regulatory and oversight activities. These include Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” January 31, 2025; Executive Order 14212, “Establishing the President’s Make America Healthy
Current report
Again Commission,” February 13, 2025; and Executive Order 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Deregulatory Initiative,” February 21, 2025. If these or other orders or executive actions impose constraints on the FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted.
Current report
If any of the foregoing developments and others impact the ability of the FDA to provide us with guidance regarding our clinical development programs or delay the agency’s review and processing of our regulatory submissions, including INDs and NDAs/BLAs, our business would be negatively impacted. Further, any future government shutdown could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.
Current report
We may be materially adversely affected by the imposition of duties and tariffs and other trade barriers and retaliatory countermeasures implemented by the U.S. and other governments.
Current report
This past spring, the U.S. government initiated a series of tariff-related actions against U.S. trading partners. On April 2, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order announcing a “baseline” reciprocal tariff of 10% on all U.S. trading partners effective April 5, 2025, and higher individualized reciprocal tariffs on 57 countries (with certain product exemptions for pharmaceutical-related products, among others). Previously, the Trump administration had imposed a 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico for goods not covered by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”) and tariffs equaling 20% on China. In response, several countries threatened retaliatory measures, including Canada and China, which then imposed retaliatory tariffs. Prior to when the country-specific reciprocal tariffs were scheduled to take effect, the Trump administration delayed the effective date of such tariffs for all countries except China to August 1, 2025. Later, the United States and China reached a framework agreement that resulted in the suspension of the higher reciprocal tariffs on China until August 12, 2025. Several countries including, among others, the European Union, Japan, and the United Kingdom, have reached deals with the U.S. that include reduced tariff rates to varying levels and other measures. The Trump administration has not definitively indicated the effective date for these deals. As of July 31, 2025, the 10% baseline reciprocal tariff announced in April on all countries remains in effect, in addition to the other tariffs on China (which were a minimum of an additional 20% as of July 15, 2025) and on Canada and Mexico (which were 25% as of July 15, 2025 for goods that are not covered by the USMCA). Sustained uncertainty about, or the further escalation of, trade and political tensions between the United States and China could result in a disadvantageous research and manufacturing environment in China, particularly for U.S. based companies, including retaliatory restrictions that hinder or potentially inhibit our ability to rely on CMOs and other service providers that operate in China.
Current report
In the past, we have failed to maintain certain continued listing requirements of the Nasdaq GS and could fail to maintain those requirements again in the future, which could negatively affect the market price of our common stock, our liquidity and our ability to raise capital. Our potential failure to meet the continued listing requirements of Nasdaq GS in the future could result in a delisting of our common stock.
Current report
There can be no assurance that we will be able to keep the closing bid price above $1.00 per share. If we fail to satisfy the continued listing requirements of Nasdaq GS, including the Bid Price Requirement, Nasdaq will provide us with another deficiency letter regarding the continued listing requirement. If we are unable to regain compliance with the Nasdaq Listing Rules in the future, Nasdaq will take steps to delist our common stock. Such a delisting from the Nasdaq GS could make trading our common stock more difficult for investors, potentially leading to declines in our share price and liquidity. If our common stock is delisted by the Nasdaq GS, our common stock may be eligible to trade on the Nasdaq Capital Market or an over-the-counter quotation system, where an investor may find it more difficult to sell our stock or obtain accurate quotations as to the market value of our common stock. We cannot assure you that our common stock, if delisted from the Nasdaq GS, will be listed on another national securities exchange or quoted on an over-the counter quotation system.
Removed paragraphs (11)
Previous report
While we currently have an effective shelf registration statement, as of the filing of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, our public float was less than $75 million, and under SEC regulations for so long as our public float remains less than $75 million, the amount we can raise through primary public offerings of securities in any twelve-month period using shelf registration statements is limited to an aggregate of one-third of our public float, which is referred to as the baby shelf rules. As of March 21, 2025, our public float was approximately $45.1 million, based on 54,969,832 shares of outstanding common stock held by non-affiliates and at a price of $0.82 per share, which was the closing price of our common stock on the Nasdaq GS on March 21, 2025. As a result of our public float being below $75 million, we are limited by the baby shelf rules until such time our public float exceeds $75 million, which means we only have the capacity to sell shares up to one-third of our public float in primary offerings under our shelf registration statement on Form S-3 in any twelve-month period. Although alternative public and private transaction structures may be available, these may require additional time and cost, may impose operational restrictions on us, and may not be available on attractive terms.
Previous report
Legislative and regulatory proposals also have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the effect of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be.
Previous report
Disruptions of funding for the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies caused by funding shortages, mass layoffs, or global health concerns could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent our product candidates from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business relies, which could negatively impact our business.
Previous report
Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the United States government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities during that period. In early 2025, following the inauguration of President Trump, the Trump Administration began terminating federal government employees, including at the FDA. The impact of mass layoffs at the agency and other governmental offices with which we interact is unclear at this time. However, it is expected that with a proposed reduction in staff of up to 50%, the FDA in the future may be unlikely to meet its application review goals or to continue to be available for timely interactions with medical product developers. It is currently unclear how the U.S. biopharmaceutical industry will be affected by the Trump Administration’s major changes to the FDA and the federal government as a whole.
Previous report
Separately, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA postponed most inspections of domestic and foreign manufacturing facilities at various points. Even though the FDA has since resumed standard inspection operations of domestic facilities where feasible, the agency has continued to monitor and implement changes to its inspectional activities to ensure the safety of its employees and those of the firms it regulates, and any resurgence of the virus or emergence of new infectious disease outbreaks may lead to future inspectional delays. Regulatory authorities outside the United States may adopt similar policy measures in response to emerging infectious disease outbreaks, epidemics, or pandemics. If a prolonged government shutdown or slowdown occurs, or if global health concerns similar to COVID-19 prevent the FDA or other regulatory agencies from conducting their regular inspections, review, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly affect the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, in our operations as a public company, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.
Previous report
Our shares of common stock could be delisted from the Nasdaq GS, which could result in, among other things, a decline in the price of our common stock and less liquidity for our stockholders.
Previous report
According to the Notice, if at any time before August 25, 2025, the closing bid price of our common stock is at least $1.00 per share for a minimum of 10 consecutive business days, Nasdaq will provide written notification that we have achieved compliance with the Bid Price Requirement and our common stock will continue to be eligible for listing on the Nasdaq GS. If we do not regain compliance with the Bid Price Requirement by the Compliance Date, we may be eligible for an additional 180 day compliance period under the following circumstances. To qualify, we would need to transfer the listing of the common stock to the Nasdaq Capital Market, provided that we meet the continued listing requirement for the market value of publicly held shares and all other initial listing standards, with the exception of the Bid Price Requirement. To effect such a transfer, we would also need to pay an application fee to Nasdaq and will need to provide written notice to Nasdaq of our intention to cure the deficiency during the additional compliance period by effecting a reverse stock split, if necessary. As part of its review process, Nasdaq would make a determination of whether it believes we will be able to cure this deficiency.
Previous report
If Nasdaq concludes that we will not be able to cure the deficiency, or if we do not cure the deficiency within such additional 180 day compliance period, Nasdaq will provide written notification to us that our common stock will be subject to delisting. At that time, we may appeal Nasdaq’s delisting determination to a Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel (the “Panel”). However, there can be no assurance that, if we receive a delisting notice and appeal the delisting determination by Nasdaq to the Panel, such appeal would be successful.
Previous report
There can be no assurance that we will be able to keep the closing bid price above $1.00 per share for the required 10 consecutive trading days by August 25, 2025. Further, if we are unable to maintain the closing bid price at $1.00 for the required period, there is no guarantee that we will regain compliance with the Bid Price Requirement. There is no guarantee that a reverse stock split would be approved by the stockholders or that a reverse stock split would allow us to regain compliance with the Bid Price Requirement.
Previous report
Any potential delisting of our common stock could have a material adverse effect on the market for, and liquidity and price of, our common stock and would adversely affect our ability to raise capital on terms acceptable to us, or at all. Delisting from Nasdaq GS could also have other negative results, including, without limitation, the potential loss of confidence by investors, customers and employees and fewer business development opportunities. Such a delisting from the Nasdaq GS would also make trading our common stock more difficult for stockholders to sell their shares in the public market. We intend to actively monitor the closing bid price of our common stock and may, if appropriate, consider implementing available options to maintain compliance with the minimum bid price requirement under the Nasdaq Listing Rules.
Previous report
We intend to actively monitor the closing bid price of our common stock and may, if appropriate, consider implementing available options to regain compliance with the minimum bid price requirement under the Nasdaq Listing Rules.
Reworded paragraphs (53)
Previous wording
On October 29, 2024, we announced that we suspended development activities for our SPR720 oral program based on an interim analysis of the Phase 2a proof-of-concept study of SPR720 for the treatment of NTM-PD not meeting its primary endpoint. While the data showed antimicrobial activity associated with SPR720, the interim analysis did not show sufficient separation from placebo and highlighted potential dose limiting safety issues in subjects dosed at 1,000 mg orally once daily, including three cases of reversible grade 3 hepatotoxicity. In evaluating the totality of both the efficacy and safety data, we have elected to suspend our current development program for SPR720 and continue to evaluate other potential paths forward as the remaining data are collected and analyzed. As a result, we have restructured our operations to focus on supporting the development of tebipenem HBr and other corporate activities while we continue to seek a pathway forward for SPR720. Further, in March 2025, we announced that we have discontinued development of SPR206. We believe this re-prioritized strategic focus is the best way to optimize our financial and other resources to advance our goal of developing and commercializing product candidates to address the unmet need for solutions to antibiotic resistant pathogens. However, there is no assurance that we will successfully execute this strategy. As described below, there are risks inherent in the clinical development process, especially for earlier-stage programs, and the regulatory path for SPR720 remains uncertain at this time. If we are unable to execute successfully on this re-prioritized strategic focus, our business and prospects may be materially adversely affected.
Current wording
On October 29, 2024, we announced that we suspended development activities for our SPR720 oral program based on an interim analysis of the Phase 2a proof-of-concept study of SPR720 for the treatment of NTM-PD not meeting its primary endpoint. While the data showed antimicrobial activity associated with SPR720, the interim analysis did not show sufficient separation from placebo and highlighted potential dose limiting safety issues in subjects dosed at 1,000 mg orally once daily, including three cases of reversible grade 3 hepatotoxicity. In evaluating the totality of both the efficacy and safety data, we elected to suspend our development program for SPR720 and continue to determine next steps. As a result, we have restructured our operations to focus on supporting the development of tebipenem HBr and other corporate activities while we continue to seek a pathway forward for SPR720. Further, in March 2025, we announced that we discontinued development of SPR206. We believe this re-prioritized strategic focus is the best way to optimize our financial and other resources to advance our goal of developing and commercializing product candidates to address the unmet need for solutions to antibiotic resistant pathogens. However, there is no assurance that we will successfully execute this strategy. As described below, there are risks inherent in the clinical development process, especially for earlier-stage programs, and the regulatory path for SPR720 remains uncertain at this time. If we are unable to execute successfully on this re-prioritized strategic focus, our business and prospects may be materially adversely affected.
Previous wording
As a result, we are currently substantially dependent on our tebipenem program and our collaboration with GSK. As described under Note 10 - License, Collaboration and Service Agreements—Tebipenem HBr Agreements, GSK has the right to terminate the GSK License Agreement (1) at any time upon a specified number of days’ notice, (2) upon a material breach by us or (3) upon a bankruptcy of Spero. Alternatively, in the case of a material breach by Spero, GSK may, in lieu of terminating the GSK License Agreement, elect to reduce any commercial milestone payments to Spero by 50%. In addition, in such circumstance, GSK may assume the responsibility and expense of development of tebipenem HBr in the United States, in which case no development milestone payments would be payable to Spero (including unpaid installments of any earned milestone payments). In the case of a Change of Control (as defined in the GSK License Agreement) of Spero, GSK similarly may, in lieu of terminating the GSK License Agreement, assume responsibility and expense of development of tebipenem HBr in the United States and no development milestones would be payable to Spero, as described above. Any termination of the GSK License Agreement or any failure to earn, or reduction in, milestone payments may materially adversely affect our business and prospects.
Current wording
As a result, we are currently substantially dependent on our tebipenem program and our collaboration with GSK. As described under Note 10 to our consolidated financial statements, GSK has the right to terminate the GSK License Agreement (1) at any time upon a specified number of days’ notice, (2) upon a material breach by us or (3) upon a bankruptcy of Spero. Alternatively, in the case of a material breach by Spero, GSK may, in lieu of terminating the GSK License Agreement, elect to reduce any commercial milestone payments to Spero by 50%. In addition, in such circumstance, GSK may assume the responsibility and expense of development of tebipenem HBr in the United States, in which case no development milestone payments would be payable to Spero (including unpaid installments of any earned milestone payments). In the case of a Change of Control (as defined in the GSK License Agreement) of Spero, GSK similarly may, in lieu of terminating the GSK License Agreement, assume responsibility and expense of development of tebipenem HBr in the United States and no development milestones would be payable to Spero, as described above. Any termination of the GSK License Agreement or any failure to earn, or reduction in, milestone payments may materially adversely affect our business and prospects.
Previous wording
Congress also recently amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) to require sponsors of a Phase 3 clinical trial, or other “pivotal study” of a new drug to support marketing authorization, to design and submit a diversity action plan for such clinical trial. The action plan must describe appropriate diversity goals for enrollment, as well as a rationale for the goals and a description of how the sponsor will meet them. In the future, we will be required to submit a diversity action plan to the FDA by the time we submit a Phase 3 clinical trial, or pivotal study, protocol to the agency for review, unless we are able to obtain a waiver for some or all of the requirements for a diversity action plan. It is unknown at this time how the diversity action plan may affect the planning and timing of any future Phase 3 clinical trial for our product candidates. However, initiation of such trials may be delayed if the FDA objects to our proposed diversity action plans for any future Phase 3 clinical trial for our product candidates, and we may experience difficulties recruiting a diverse population of patients in attempting to fulfill the requirements of any approved diversity action plan.
Current wording
Congress also amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) to require sponsors of a Phase 3 clinical trial, or other “pivotal study” of a new drug to support marketing authorization, to design and submit a diversity action plan (“DAP”) for such clinical trial. The action plan must describe appropriate diversity goals for enrollment, as well as a rationale for the goals and a description of how the sponsor will meet them. In the future, we will be required to submit a DAP to the FDA by the time we submit a Phase 3 clinical trial, or pivotal study, protocol to the agency for review, unless we are able to obtain a waiver for some or all of the requirements for a DAP. It is unknown at this time how the DAP may affect the planning and timing of any future Phase 3 clinical trial for our product candidates. However, initiation of such trials may be delayed if the FDA objects to our proposed DAPs for any future Phase 3 clinical trial for our product candidates, and we may experience difficulties recruiting a diverse population of patients in attempting to fulfill the requirements of any approved DAP.
Previous wording
In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety and efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial protocols, differences in size and type of the patient populations, differences in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. We therefore 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
In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety and efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial protocols, differences in size and type of the patient populations, differences in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants.
Previous wording
There are several IV-administered products marketed for the treatment of infections resistant to first-line therapy for Gram-negative infections, including Avycaz (ceftazidime-avibactam) from Allergan plc and Pfizer Inc., Zerbaxa (ceftolozane-tazobactam) from Merck & Co., imipenem/cilastatin and Recarbrio (relebactam) from Merck & Co., Zemdri (plazomicin) from Cipla Therapeutics, Inc., Fetroja (cefiderocol) from Shionogi & Co. Ltd., Xerava (eravacycline) from Innoviva, Inc. and Vabomere (meropenem-vaborbactam) from Melinta Therapeutics, Inc., and Exblifep (cefepime/enmetazobactam) from Allecra Therapeutics.
Current wording
There are several IV-administered products marketed for the treatment of infections resistant to first-line therapy for Gram-negative infections, including Avycaz (ceftazidime-avibactam) from Allergan plc and Pfizer, Zerbaxa (ceftolozane-tazobactam) from Merck & Co., imipenem/cilastatin and Recarbrio (relebactam) from Merck & Co., Zemdri (plazomicin) from Cipla Therapeutics, Inc., Fetroja (cefiderocol) from Shionogi & Co. Ltd., Xerava (eravacycline) from Innoviva, Inc. and Vabomere (meropenem-vaborbactam) from Melinta Therapeutics, Inc., and Exblifep (cefepime/enmetazobactam) from Allecra Therapeutics.
Previous wording
If we are not successful in discovering, developing and commercializing additional product candidates, our ability to expand our business and achieve our strategic objectives would be impaired.
Current wording
If we are not successful in developing and commercializing additional product candidates, our ability to expand our business and achieve our strategic objectives would be impaired.
Previous wording
Although a substantial amount of our efforts will focus on our ongoing and planned clinical trials and potential approval of our product candidate, tebipenem HBr, as well as exploring clinical and development pathways forward for SPR720, a key element of our strategy is to discover, develop and commercialize a portfolio of therapeutics to treat drug resistant bacterial infections. We are exploring, and intend to explore in the future, strategic partnerships for the development of new product candidates.
Current wording
Although a substantial amount of our efforts will focus on our ongoing and planned clinical trials and potential approval of our product candidate, tebipenem HBr, as well as determining next steps for SPR720, a key element of our strategy is to develop and commercialize a portfolio of therapeutics to treat drug resistant bacterial infections. We are exploring, and intend to explore in the future, strategic partnerships for the development of new product candidates.
Previous wording
We are subject to domestic and international data protection laws and regulations that address privacy and data security and may affect our collection, use, storage, and transfer of personal information. The legislative and regulatory landscape for data protection continues to evolve, and in recent years there has been an increasing focus on privacy and data security issues with the potential to affect our business. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws and federal and state consumer protection laws govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information. Failure to comply with data protection laws and regulations, where applicable, could result in government enforcement actions, which could include civil or criminal penalties, private litigation and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business. For example, California has enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), which went into effect in January of 2020. The CCPA gives California residents expanded rights to access and require deletion of their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that may increase data breach litigation. Although the CCPA includes exemptions for certain clinical trials data, and the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) protected health information, the law may increase our compliance costs and potential liability with respect to other personal information we collect about California residents. Additionally in 2020, California voters passed the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”), which went into full effect on January 1, 2023. The CPRA significantly amends the CCPA, potentially resulting in further uncertainty, additional costs and expenses in an effort to comply and additional potential for harm and liability for failure to comply. Among other things, the CPRA established a new regulatory authority, the California Privacy Protection Agency, which is tasked with enacting new regulations under the CPRA and will have expanded enforcement authority. In addition to California, more U.S. states are enacting similar legislation, increasing compliance complexity and increasing risks of failures to comply. In 2023, comprehensive privacy laws in Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, and Utah all took effect, and laws in Montana, Oregon, and Texas took effect in 2024. Laws in a number of other U.S. states took effect, or are set to take effect, in 2025, in 2026, and beyond, and additional U.S. states have proposals under consideration, all of which are likely to increase our regulatory compliance costs and risks, expos…
Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.
Current wording
We are subject to domestic and international data protection laws and regulations that address privacy and data security and may affect our collection, use, storage, and transfer of personal information. The legislative and regulatory landscape for data protection continues to evolve, and in recent years there has been an increasing focus on privacy and data security issues with the potential to affect our business. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws and federal and state consumer protection laws govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information. Failure to comply with data protection laws and regulations, where applicable, could result in government enforcement actions, which could include civil or criminal penalties, private litigation and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business. For example, California has enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), which went into effect in January of 2020. The CCPA gives California residents expanded rights to access and require deletion of their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that may increase data breach litigation. Although the CCPA includes exemptions for certain clinical trials data, and the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) protected health information, the law may increase our compliance costs and potential liability with respect to other personal information we collect about California residents. Additionally in 2020, California voters passed the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”), which went into full effect on January 1, 2023. The CPRA significantly amends the CCPA, potentially resulting in further uncertainty, additional costs and expenses in an effort to comply and additional potential for harm and liability for failure to comply. Among other things, the CPRA established a new regulatory authority, the California Privacy Protection Agency, which is tasked with enacting new regulations under the CPRA and will have expanded enforcement authority. In addition to California, more U.S. states are enacting similar legislation, increasing compliance complexity and increasing risks of failures to comply. In 2023, comprehensive privacy laws in Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, and Utah all took effect, and laws in Montana, Oregon, and Texas took effect in 2024. Laws in a number of other U.S. states took effect, or are set to take effect, in 2025, and beyond, and additional U.S. states have proposals under consideration, all of which are likely to increase our regulatory compliance costs and risks, exposure to re…
Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.
Previous wording
We have not generated any revenue from the sale of our products and have incurred losses in most years since our inception in 2013. Our net loss was $13.9 million during the three months ended March 31, 2025. All of our product candidates are in development, none have been approved for sale and we may never have a product candidate approved for commercialization.
Current wording
We have not generated any revenue from the sale of our products and have incurred losses in most years since our inception in 2013. Our net loss was $1.7 million and $15.6 million during the three and six months ended June 30, 2025, respectively. All of our product candidates are in development, none have been approved for sale and we may never have a product candidate approved for commercialization.
Previous wording
In accordance with ASU 2014-15, Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern (Subtopic 205- 40), we have evaluated whether there are conditions and events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that these consolidated financial statements are issued. Based on our cash and cash equivalents as of March 31, 2025, together with earned and non-contingent development milestone payments from GSK, we believe that our cash runway will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and required capital expenditures into the second quarter of 2026. During this period, we plan to prioritize advancing the Phase 3 clinical trial activities for tebipenem HBr under our GSK License Agreement and completing our analysis of the full dataset from the 25 treated patients in the Phase 2a proof-of-concept trial of SPR720. Beyond this point we will need additional funding, which we expect will primarily consist of raising additional capital through some combination of equity or debt financings, potential new collaborations or additional grant funding. If we are not able to secure adequate additional funding, we plan to make further reductions in spending. In that event, we may have to delay, scale back, or eliminate some or all of our planned development activities. The actions necessary to reduce spending under this plan at a level that mitigates the factors described above is not considered probable, as defined in the accounting standards and therefore, the full extent to which management may extend our funds through these actions may not be considered in management’s assessment of our ability to continue as a going concern. As a result, management has concluded that substantial doubt exists about our ability to continue as a going concern.
Current wording
In accordance with ASU 2014-15, Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern (Subtopic 205- 40), we have evaluated whether there are conditions and events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that these consolidated financial statements are issued. Based on our cash and cash equivalents as of June 30, 2025, together with earned and non-contingent development milestone payments from GSK, including the final payment under the GSK License Agreement of $23.8 million received in the third quarter of 2025, and the decrease in clinical expense as a result of the PIVOT-PO Phase 3 trial for tebipenem HBr stopping early for efficacy following positive interim analysis results, we believe that our cash runway will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and required capital expenditures into 2028. During this period, we plan to prioritize finalizing the Phase 3 clinical trial activities for tebipenem HBr under our GSK License Agreement. Beyond this point, or in the event we change our current operating plan, we will need additional funding, which we expect will primarily consist of raising additional capital through some combination of equity or debt financings, potential new collaborations or additional grant funding. If we are not able to secure adequate additional funding, we plan to make further reductions in spending. In that event, we may have to delay, scale back, or eliminate some or all of our planned development activities. The actions necessary to reduce spending under this plan at a level that mitigates the factors described above is not considered probable, as defined in the accounting standards and therefore, the full extent to which management may extend our funds through these actions may not be considered in management’s assessment of our ability to continue as a going concern.
Previous wording
We currently have no products approved for sale and have historically invested a significant portion of our efforts and financial resources on the development of our product candidates, including tebipenem HBr, SPR206, and SPR720. Although we have decided to discontinue further development of SPR206 and are exploring strategic options, including potential out-licensing, to maximize the value for the program and allow us to leverage the expertise of strategic partners and have suspended our current development efforts with respect to the SPR720 oral program, although we continue to evaluate other potential paths forward as the remaining data are collected and analyzed, our business remains heavily dependent on the successful development, regulatory approval, and, if approved, commercialization of tebipenem HBr and other future product candidates. We cannot be certain that any product candidate will receive regulatory approval or will be successfully commercialized even if it receives regulatory approval.
Current wording
We currently have no products approved for sale and have historically invested a significant portion of our efforts and financial resources in the development of our product candidates, including tebipenem HBr, SPR206, and SPR720. Although we decided to discontinue further development of SPR206 and are exploring strategic options, including potential out-licensing, to maximize the value for the program and allow us to leverage the expertise of strategic partners and although we have suspended our development efforts with respect to the SPR720 oral program and are continuing to determine next steps, our business remains heavily dependent on the successful development, regulatory approval, and, if approved, commercialization of tebipenem HBr and other future product candidates. We cannot be certain that any product candidate will receive regulatory approval or will be successfully commercialized even if it receives regulatory approval.
Previous wording
Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing biopharmaceutical products, we are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or when, if ever, we will become profitable. Our expenses could increase if we are required by the FDA, or any comparable foreign regulatory authority to perform studies in addition to those currently expected, or if there are any delays in completing our clinical trials or the development of any of our product candidates.
Current wording
Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing [biopharmaceutical products], we are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or when, if ever, we will become profitable. Our expenses would increase if we are required by the FDA, or any comparable foreign regulatory authority to perform studies in addition to those currently expected, or if there are any delays in completing our clinical trials or the development of any of our product candidates.
Previous wording
Developing pharmaceutical products, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete. Our expenses are likely to increase as we commence and advance our ongoing and planned clinical trials and other studies for our current and future product candidates, as well as explore clinical and development pathways forward for SPR720. If we obtain marketing approval for any product candidate, we expect to incur significant expenses related to development, product sales, marketing, distribution and manufacturing. Some of these expenses may be incurred in advance of marketing approval and could be substantial. Accordingly, we will be required to obtain further funding through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, licensing arrangements, government funding or other sources. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed would have a negative effect on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy.
Current wording
Developing pharmaceutical products, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete. Our expenses are likely to increase as we commence and advance our ongoing and planned clinical trials and other studies for our current and future product candidates, as well as determining next steps for SPR720. If we obtain marketing approval for any product candidate, we expect to incur significant expenses related to development, product sales, marketing, distribution and manufacturing. Some of these expenses may be incurred in advance of marketing approval and could be substantial. Accordingly, we will be required to obtain further funding through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, licensing arrangements, government funding or other sources. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed would have a negative effect on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy.
Previous wording
Based on our cash and cash equivalents as of March 31, 2025, together with earned and non-contingent development milestone payments from GSK, we believe that our cash runway will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditures into the second quarter of 2026. During this period, we plan to prioritize advancing the Phase 3 clinical trial activities for tebipenem HBr under our GSK License Agreement and completing our analysis of the full dataset from the 25 treated patients in the Phase 2a proof-of-concept trial of SPR720. Beyond this point we will need additional funding, which we expect will primarily consist of raising additional capital through some combination of equity or debt financings, potential new collaborations or additional grant funding. If we are not able to secure adequate additional funding, we plan to make further reductions in spending. In that event, we may have to delay, scale back, or eliminate some or all of our planned development activities, including:
Current wording
Based on our cash and cash equivalents as of June 30, 2025, together with earned and non-contingent development milestone payments from GSK, and the decrease in clinical expense as a result of the PIVOT-PO Phase 3 trial for tebipenem HBr stopping early for efficacy following positive interim analysis results, we believe that our cash runway will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditures into 2028. During this period, we plan to prioritize finalizing the Phase 3 clinical trial activities for tebipenem HBr under our GSK License Agreement. Beyond this point, or in the event we change our current operating plan, we will need substantial additional funding to support our continuing operations and pursue our growth strategy. Until such time as we can generate significant revenue from product sales, if ever, we expect to finance our operations through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, government funding arrangements, collaborations, strategic alliances and marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements. If we are not able to secure adequate additional funding, we plan to make further reductions in spending. In that event, we may have to delay, scale back, or eliminate some or all of our planned development activities, including:
Previous wording
Unless and until we can generate a substantial amount of revenue from our product candidates, we expect to finance our future cash needs through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, licensing arrangements and government funding arrangements. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations, even if we believe that we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. We filed a universal shelf registration statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-254170) with the SEC on March 11, 2021, which was declared effective on March 29, 2021 (the “2021 Form S-3”), and pursuant to which we registered for sale up to $300.0 million of any combination of our common stock, preferred stock, debt securities, warrants, rights and/or units from time to time and at prices and on terms that we could determine, including up to $75.0 million of our common stock available for issuance pursuant to the Sales Agreement that we entered into with Cantor. The 2021 Form S-3 expired on March 29, 2024.
Current wording
Unless and until we can generate a substantial amount of revenue from our product candidates, we expect to finance our future cash needs through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, licensing arrangements and government funding arrangements. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations, even if we believe that we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans.
Previous wording
As of December 31, 2024, we had U.S. federal, state and foreign net operating loss carryforwards (“NOLs”) of $165.2 million, $120.6 million and $4.6 million, respectively. $152.0 million of the federal NOLs can be carried forward indefinitely and $13.2 million of the federal NOLs begin to expire in 2034. The state NOLs begin to expire in 2034 and will expire at various dates through 2044. The foreign NOLs do not expire. Utilization of these NOLs depends on many factors, including our future income, which cannot be assured. Aside from the NOLs that can be carried forward indefinitely, the remaining NOLs could expire unused and be unavailable to offset our future income tax liabilities. In addition, under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") and corresponding provisions of state law, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” which is generally defined as a greater than 50% change, by value, in its equity ownership by 5% stockholders over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOLs and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income may be limited. We recently completed a Section 382 study and concluded that we underwent several ownership changes as defined by the Code, the last of which occurred during the year ended December 31, 2018. Any carryforwards that will expire prior to utilization were removed from deferred tax assets, with a corresponding reduction of the valuation allowance. Future ownership changes may limit our ability to utilize remaining tax attributes.
Current wording
As of December 31, 2024, we had U.S. federal, state and foreign net operating loss carryforwards (“NOLs”) of $165.2 million, $120.6 million and $4.6 million, respectively. $152.0 million of the federal NOLs can be carried forward indefinitely and $13.2 million of the federal NOLs begin to expire in 2034. The state NOLs begin to expire in 2034 and will expire at various dates through 2044. The foreign NOLs do not expire. Utilization of these NOLs depends on many factors, including our future income, which cannot be assured. Our NOLs, other than the NOLs that can be carried forward indefinitely, could expire unused and be unavailable to offset our future income tax liabilities. Any carryforwards that will expire prior to utilization were removed from deferred tax assets, with a corresponding reduction of the valuation allowance. In addition, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") and corresponding provisions of state law, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” which is generally defined as a greater than 50% change, by value, in its equity ownership by 5% stockholders over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOLs and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income may be limited. We recently completed a Section 382 study and concluded that we underwent several ownership changes as defined by the Code, the last of which occurred during the year ended December 31, 2018. Future ownership changes, some of which may be beyond our control, may limit our ability to utilize our tax attributes.
Previous wording
Under current U.S. federal tax legislation, although the treatment of NOLs arising in tax years beginning on or before December 31, 2017 has generally not changed, NOLs arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 may be used to offset only 80% of taxable income. In addition, net operating losses arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 may be carried forward indefinitely, as opposed to the 20-year carryforward under prior law.
Current wording
Under current U.S. federal tax legislation, NOLs arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 may be used to offset only 80% of taxable income (although such NOLs may be carried forward indefinitely).
Previous wording
We have and may continue to seek third-party collaborators for development and commercialization of certain of our product candidates. Currently we are party to license and collaboration agreements with third parties as described in Note 10 - License, Collaboration and Service Agreements to our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Our likely collaborators for any other marketing, distribution, development, licensing or broader collaboration arrangements we may pursue include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies.
Current wording
We have and may continue to seek third-party collaborators for development and commercialization of certain of our product candidates. Currently we are party to license and collaboration agreements with third parties as described in Note 10 to our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Our likely collaborators for any other marketing, distribution, development, licensing or broader collaboration arrangements we may pursue include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies.
Previous wording
Our third-party contract manufacturers are based in Asia. Recently, our third-party contract manufacturers have been subject to various supply chain disruptions. These supply chain disruptions have increased the price of certain materials due to the significant increase in costs of raw materials and shipping costs. Our ability to produce and timely deliver our products may be materially impacted in the future if these supply chain disruptions continue or worsen.
Current wording
Our third-party contract manufacturers are based in Asia. In the past, our third-party contract manufacturers have been subject to various supply chain disruptions. These supply chain disruptions have increased the price of certain materials due to the significant increase in costs of raw materials and shipping costs. Our ability to produce and timely deliver our products may be materially impacted in the future if these supply chain disruptions continue or worsen.
Previous wording
Further, a major catastrophe, such as an earthquake or other natural disaster, labor strike, or work stoppage at any of our manufacturing facilities, or a manufacturing facility of our suppliers or customers, could result in a prolonged interruption of our business. A disruption resulting from any one of these events could cause significant delays in shipments of our products and the loss of revenue and customers, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. Our facilities in Japan and Taiwan are located in seismically-active areas.
Current wording
Further, a major catastrophe, such as an earthquake or other natural disaster, labor strike, or work stoppage at any of our manufacturing facilities, or a manufacturing facility of our suppliers or customers, could result in a prolonged interruption of our business. A disruption resulting from any one of these events could cause significant delays in shipments of our products and the loss of revenue and customers, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. Our manufacturer's facilities in Japan are located in seismically-active areas.
Previous wording
If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we in-license or out-license acquire development or commercialization rights to products, technology or data from or to third parties, we could lose such rights that are important to our business.
Current wording
If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we in-license or out-license or acquire development or commercialization rights to products, technology or data from or to third parties, we could lose rights that are important to our business.
Previous wording
For example, we have the Meiji License that gives us rights outside of the Meiji Territory to develop, manufacture, and commercialize tebipenem HBr as well as the right to use, cross-reference, file or incorporate by reference any information and relevant Meiji regulatory documentation to support any regulatory filings outside of the Meiji Territory. In addition, we have the right to develop, manufacture and have manufactured tebipenem HBr in the Meiji Territory solely for the purpose of furthering development, manufacturing and commercialization of tebipenem HBr outside of the Meiji Territory. In exchange for those rights, we are obligated to satisfy diligence requirements, including using commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize tebipenem HBr and to implement a specified development plan, meeting specified development milestones and providing an update on progress on an annual basis. The Meiji License requires us to pay future milestone payments of up to $1.0 million upon the achievement of specified regulatory milestones and royalties of a low single-digit percentage on net sales on a country-by-country basis.
Current wording
For example, we have the Meiji License that gives us rights outside of the Meiji Territory to develop, manufacture, and commercialize tebipenem HBr as well as the right to use, cross-reference, file or incorporate by reference any information and relevant Meiji regulatory documentation to support any regulatory filings outside of the Meiji Territory. In addition, we have the right to develop, manufacture and have manufactured tebipenem HBr in the Meiji Territory solely for the purpose of furthering development, manufacturing and commercialization of tebipenem HBr outside of the Meiji Territory. In exchange for those rights, we are obligated to satisfy diligence requirements, including using commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize tebipenem HBr and to implement a specified development plan, meeting specified development milestones and providing an update on progress on an annual basis. The Meiji License requires us to pay future milestone payments of up to $1.0 million upon the achievement of specified regulatory milestones and royalties of 1% of net sales on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis.
Previous wording
In addition, pursuant to our GSK License Agreement, we granted GSK an exclusive royalty-bearing license, with the right to grant sublicenses, under our intellectual property and regulatory documents and a sublicense under certain intellectual property of Meiji and Meiji’s regulatory documents to develop, manufacture and commercialize the GSK Licensed Products in the GSK Territory. Under the terms of the GSK License Agreement, we received an upfront payment of $66.0 million for GSK to secure rights to the medicine, a $30.0 million milestone payment upon achievement of a development milestone in the third quarter of 2023, and are entitled to receive a $95.0 million development milestone that is payable in four equal semi-annual installments, of which we received $23.8 million in February 2024, $23.8 million in August 2024 and $23.8 million in February 2025. Remaining potential payments under the GSK License Agreement are milestone based and are (i) approximately $25.0 million in payments for GSK's submission of a NDA with the FDA for tebipenem HBr, (ii) up to $150.0 million in commercial milestone payments, (iii) up to $225.0 million in sales milestone payments, and (iv) tiered low single-digit to low double-digit royalties (if sales exceed $1.0 billion) tiered on net sales of GSK Licensed Products in the GSK Territory.
Current wording
In addition, pursuant to our GSK License Agreement, we granted GSK an exclusive royalty-bearing license, with the right to grant sublicenses, under our intellectual property and regulatory documents and a sublicense under certain intellectual property of Meiji and Meiji’s regulatory documents to develop, manufacture and commercialize the GSK Licensed Products in the GSK Territory. Under the terms of the GSK License Agreement, we received an upfront payment of $66.0 million for GSK to secure rights to tebipenem pivoxil and tebipenem HBr, a $30.0 million milestone payment upon achievement of a development milestone in the third quarter of 2023, and are entitled to receive a $95.0 million development milestone payment that is payable in four equal semi-annual installments, of which we received $23.8 million in the first quarter of 2024, the third quarter of 2024, the first quarter of 2025 and the third quarter of 2025. Remaining potential payments under the GSK License Agreement are milestone based and are (i) $25.0 million for GSK’s submission of a NDA with the FDA for tebipenem HBr, (ii) up to $101.0 million in commercial milestone payments, and (iii) up to $225.0 million in sales milestone payments. In addition to the milestones described above, GSK is obligated to pay royalties to us on annual net sales of GSK Licensed Products in the GSK Territory. Such royalties are 1% for annual sales up to $750.0 million each year and range from high single-digit percentages on annual net sales above $750.0 million each year to low double-digit percentages on annual net sales above $1,000 million each year.
Previous wording
We have received significant non-dilutive financing from various government agencies for the further development of our product candidates. Such funding sources may pose risks to us not encountered in other commercial contracts, including significant regulatory compliance risks. Contracts funded by the United States government and its agencies include provisions that reflect the government’s substantial public policy and compliance requirements, and substantial rights and remedies, many of which are not typically found in commercial contracts, including powers of the government to:
Current wording
We have received significant non-dilutive financing from various government agencies for the further development of our product candidates. Such funding sources may pose risks to us not encountered in other commercial contracts, including significant regulatory compliance risks. Contracts funded by the U.S. government and its agencies include provisions that reflect the government’s substantial public policy and compliance requirements, and substantial rights and remedies, many of which are not typically found in commercial contracts, including powers of the government to:
Previous wording
The U.S. government will be able to terminate any of its contracts with us, either for convenience or if we default by failing to perform in accordance with or to achieve the milestones set forth in the contract schedules and terms. Termination-for-convenience provisions generally enable us to recover only our costs incurred or committed and settlement expenses on the work completed prior to termination. Except for the amount of services received by the government, termination-for-default provisions do not permit these recoveries and would make us liable for excess costs incurred by the United States government in procuring undelivered items from another source.
Current wording
The U.S. government will be able to terminate any of its contracts with us, either for convenience or if we default by failing to perform in accordance with or to achieve the milestones set forth in the contract schedules and terms. Termination-for-convenience provisions generally enable us to recover only our costs incurred or committed and settlement expenses on the work completed prior to termination. Except for the amount of services received by the government, termination-for-default provisions do not permit these recoveries and would make us liable for excess costs incurred by the U.S. government in procuring undelivered items from another source.
Previous wording
United States government agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”) and the Defense Contract Audit Agency (the “DCAA”) routinely audit and investigate government contractors. These agencies review a contractor’s performance under its contracts, cost structure and compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards.
Current wording
U.S. government agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”) and the Defense Contract Audit Agency (the “DCAA”) routinely audit and investigate government contractors. These agencies review a contractor’s performance under its contracts, cost structure and compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards.
Previous wording
suspension or prohibition from conducting business with the United States government.
Current wording
suspension or prohibition from conducting business with the U.S. government.
Previous wording
The laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. For example, in the United States, there is an exception for one’s own publication of an invention prior to filing a patent application for the invention. Most other countries have no such exception and any publication prior to filing is an absolute bar to patentability. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. As a result of the America Invents Act of 2011, the United States transitioned to a first-inventor-to-file system in March 2013, under which, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application is entitled to the patent. However, as a result of the lag in the publication of patent applications following filing in the United States, we are still not be able to be certain upon filing that we are the first to file for patent protection for any invention. Moreover, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review or interference proceedings, in the United States or elsewhere, challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights.
Current wording
The laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. For example, in the United States, there is an exception for one’s own publication of an invention prior to filing a patent application for the invention. Most other countries have no such exception and any publication prior to filing is an absolute bar to patentability. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. As a result of the America Invents Act of 2011, the United States transitioned to a first-inventor-to-file system in March 2013, under which, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application is entitled to the patent. However, as a result of the lag in the publication of patent applications following filing in the United States, we are still not be able to be certain upon filing that we are the first to file for patent protection for any invention. Moreover, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review or interference proceedings, in the United States or elsewhere, challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights.
Previous wording
We have received fast track designation for tebipenem HBr for the treatment of cUTIs, including pyelonephritis, in adult patients who have limited oral treatment options, as well as fast track designation for SPR720 for treatment of adult patients with NTM pulmonary disease, and we may seek fast track designation for one or more of our other product candidates in the future. If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious condition and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical need for this condition, a drug sponsor may apply for fast track designation by the FDA for the particular indication under study. If fast track designation is obtained, the FDA may initiate review of sections of an NDA before the application is complete. This “rolling review” is available if the applicant provides and the FDA approves a schedule for the remaining information. If we seek fast track designation for a product candidate, we may not receive it from the FDA. However, even if we receive fast track designation, fast track designation does not ensure that we will receive marketing approval or that approval will be granted within any particular timeframe. We may not experience a faster development or regulatory review or approval process with fast track designation 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. Fast track designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures.
Current wording
We have received fast track designation for tebipenem HBr for the treatment of cUTI, including pyelonephritis, as well as fast track designation for SPR720 for treatment of adult patients with NTM-PD, and we may seek fast track designation for one or more of our other product candidates in the future. If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious condition and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical need for this condition, a drug sponsor may apply for fast track designation by the FDA for the particular indication under study. If fast track designation is obtained, the FDA may initiate review of sections of an NDA before the application is complete. This “rolling review” is available if the applicant provides and the FDA approves a schedule for the remaining information. If we seek fast track designation for a product candidate, we may not receive it from the FDA. However, even if we receive fast track designation, fast track designation does not ensure that we will receive marketing approval or that approval will be granted within any particular timeframe. We may not experience a faster development or regulatory review or approval process with fast track designation 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. Fast track designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures. Additionally, the FDA has designated tebipenem HBr as a Qualified Infectious Disease Product (“QIDP”) for the treatment of cUTI, community-acquired pneumonia (“CABP”) and diabetic foot infections (“DFI”) under the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now (“GAIN”) Act. Among other benefits of a QIDP designation, the first marketing application for the QIDP-designated indication qualifies for priority review by the FDA. Further, if tebipenem HBr is approved for the treatment of cUTI, CABP or DFI, the FDA’s QIDP designation previously granted to tebipenem HBr for those indications will entitle the drug product to receive a one-time five-year extension to any non-patent exclusivity period awarded to tebipenem HBr in the United States, such as a five-year New Chemical Entity exclusivity granted under the Hatch-Waxman Act, among other possible periods of regulatory exclusivity that would qualify for a GAIN exclusivity extension. The QIDP designation for tebipenem HBr, however, does not guarantee a faster development process or ensure FDA approval.
Previous wording
While we have negotiated a SPA agreement with the FDA relating to our pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of tebipenem HBr in patients with cUTI, including AP, this agreement does not guarantee approval of tebipenem HBr or any other particular outcome from regulatory review of the clinical trial or the product candidate.
Current wording
While we have negotiated a SPA agreement with the FDA relating to our pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of tebipenem HBr in patients with cUTI, including acute pyelonephritis, this agreement does not guarantee approval of tebipenem HBr or any other particular outcome from regulatory review of the clinical trial or the product candidate.
Previous wording
On July 31, 2023, the Company announced that it received written agreement from the FDA, under a special protocol assessment (“SPA”), on the design and size of PIVOT-PO, a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of tebipenem HBr in patients with cUTI, including AP. The FDA’s SPA process is designed to allow the FDA to evaluate the proposed design and size of clinical trials that are intended to form the primary basis for determining a drug product’s efficacy, among other eligible protocols. Upon specific written request by a clinical trial sponsor, the FDA will evaluate the planned protocol and respond to a sponsor’s questions regarding, among other things, primary efficacy endpoints, trial conduct and data analysis. The FDA ultimately assesses whether the protocol design and planned analysis of the trial adequately address scientific and regulatory requirements for the particular purposes identified by the sponsor, which in this case was that the PIVOT-PO protocol can be considered an adequate and well-controlled study in support of our future resubmission of the tebipenem HBr marketing application. All agreements between the FDA and the sponsor regarding an SPA must be clearly documented in writing, either in the form of an SPA letter or minutes of a meeting between the sponsor and the FDA at which the SPA agreement was reached.
Current wording
On July 31, 2023, the Company announced that it received written agreement from the FDA, under a special protocol assessment (“SPA”), on the design and size of PIVOT-PO, a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of tebipenem HBr in patients with cUTI, including acute pyelonephritis. The FDA’s SPA process is designed to allow the FDA to evaluate the proposed design and size of clinical trials that are intended to form the primary basis for determining a drug product’s efficacy, among other eligible protocols. Upon specific written request by a clinical trial sponsor, the FDA will evaluate the planned protocol and respond to a sponsor’s questions regarding, among other things, primary efficacy endpoints, trial conduct and data analysis. The FDA ultimately assesses whether the protocol design and planned analysis of the trial adequately address scientific and regulatory requirements for the particular purposes identified by the sponsor, which in this case was that the PIVOT-PO protocol can be considered an adequate and well-controlled study in support of our future resubmission of the tebipenem HBr marketing application. All agreements between the FDA and the sponsor regarding an SPA must be clearly documented in writing, either in the form of an SPA letter or minutes of a meeting between the sponsor and the FDA at which the SPA agreement was reached.
Previous wording
Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan product if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population of greater than 200,000 individuals in the United States, but for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. There can be no assurance that the FDA will grant orphan designation for any indication for which we apply.
Current wording
Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983 (the “Orphan Drug Act”), the FDA may designate a product as an orphan product if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population of greater than 200,000 individuals in the United States, but for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. There can be no assurance that the FDA will grant orphan designation for any indication for which we apply.
Previous wording
Even though we have obtained orphan drug designation for SPR720 and may seek orphan drug designation for other product candidates in the future, there is no assurance that we will be the first to obtain marketing approval for NTM infection or for any particular rare indication. Further, even though we have obtained orphan drug designation for SPR720, or even if we obtain orphan drug designation for other product candidates, such designation may not effectively protect us from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition and the same drug can be approved for different conditions and potentially used off-label in the orphan indication. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve a competing drug for the same condition for several reasons, including, if the FDA concludes that the later drug is safer or more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug, nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process.
Current wording
Even though we have obtained orphan drug designation for SPR720 and may seek orphan drug designation for other product candidates in the future, there is no assurance that we or any third party partner we may have in the future will be the first to obtain marketing approval for NTM infection or for any particular rare indication. Further, even though we have obtained orphan drug designation for SPR720, or even if we obtain orphan drug designation for other product candidates, such designation may not effectively protect us from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition and the same drug can be approved for different conditions and potentially used off-label in the orphan indication. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve a competing drug for the same condition for several reasons, including, if the FDA concludes that the later drug is safer or more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug, nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process.
Previous wording
Even if we are successful in achieving regulatory approval to commercialize a product candidate, it may face competition from generic products earlier or more aggressively than anticipated, depending upon how well our future products perform in the United States prescription drug market. In addition to creating the 505(b)(2) NDA pathway, the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA authorized the FDA to approve generic drugs that are the same as drugs previously approved for marketing under the NDA provisions of the statute pursuant to ANDAs. An ANDA relies on the preclinical and clinical testing conducted for a previously approved reference listed drug (“RLD”) and must demonstrate to the FDA that the generic drug product is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, and the strength of the drug and also that it is “bioequivalent” to the RLD. The FDA is prohibited by statute from approving an ANDA when certain marketing or data exclusivity protections apply to the RLD.
Current wording
Even if we are successful in achieving regulatory approval to commercialize a product candidate, it may face competition from generic products earlier or more aggressively than anticipated, depending upon how well our future products perform in the U.S. prescription drug market. In addition to creating the 505(b)(2) NDA pathway, the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA authorized the FDA to approve generic drugs that are the same as drugs previously approved for marketing under the NDA provisions of the statute pursuant to ANDAs. An ANDA relies on the preclinical and clinical testing conducted for a previously approved reference listed drug (“RLD”) and must demonstrate to the FDA that the generic drug product is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, and the strength of the drug and also that it is “bioequivalent” to the RLD. The FDA is prohibited by statute from approving an ANDA when certain marketing or data exclusivity protections apply to the RLD.
Previous wording
In order to market and sell our product candidates in the European Union and many other jurisdictions, we or our partners must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. In addition, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries. Further, in April 2023, the European Commission issued a proposal to revise and replace the existing general pharmaceutical legislation. If adopted and implemented as currently proposed, these revisions will significantly change several aspects of drug development and approval in the European Union. The time required to obtain approval from regulatory authorities in other countries may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside the United States, it is required that the product be approved for reimbursement before the product can be approved for sale in that country. We or our partners may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside the United States on a timely basis or at all.
Current wording
In order to market and sell our product candidates in the European Union and many other jurisdictions, we or our partners must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. In addition, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries. Further, in April 2023, the European Commission issued a proposal to revise and replace the existing general pharmaceutical legislation. On June 4, 2025, after almost two years of negotiations among the EU Member States, the Council of the European Union adopted its position on the proposed overhaul of the EU general pharmaceutical legislative framework, which is known as the new Pharma Package. If adopted and implemented as currently proposed, these revisions will significantly change several aspects of drug development and approval in the European Union. The time required to obtain approval from regulatory authorities in other countries may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside the United States, it is required that the product be approved for reimbursement before the product can be approved for sale in that country. We or our partners may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside the United States on a timely basis or at all.
Previous wording
The pricing and reimbursement environment may become more challenging due to, among other reasons, policies advanced by the presidential administration, federal agencies, new healthcare legislation passed by the United States Congress or fiscal challenges faced by all levels of government health administration authorities. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and foreign countries, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and expanding access to healthcare. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any products for which we obtain marketing approval, due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative proposals. Resulting legislative, administrative, or policy changes from payors may reduce payments for any products for which we obtain marketing approval and could affect future revenues.
Current wording
The pricing and reimbursement environment may become more challenging due to, among other reasons, policies advanced by the presidential administration, federal agencies, new healthcare legislation passed by the U.S. Congress or fiscal challenges faced by all levels of government health administration authorities. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and foreign countries, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and expanding access to healthcare. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any products for which we obtain marketing approval, due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative proposals. Resulting legislative, administrative, or policy changes from payors may reduce payments for any products for which we obtain marketing approval and could affect future revenues.
Previous wording
The ACA became law in the United States in March 2010 with the goals of broadening access to health insurance, reducing or constraining the growth of healthcare spending, enhancing remedies against fraud and abuse, adding new transparency requirements for the health care and health insurance industries and imposing additional health policy reforms. Provisions of ACA may negatively affect our future revenues. For example, the ACA requires, among other things, that annual fees be paid by manufacturers for certain branded prescription drugs, that manufacturers participate in a discount program for certain outpatient drugs under Medicare Part D, and that manufacturers provide increased rebates under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program for outpatient drugs dispensed to Medicaid recipients. The ACA also addresses a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for line extensions and expands oversight and support for the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research of services and products.
Current wording
The Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) became law in the United States in March 2010 with the goals of broadening access to health insurance, reducing or constraining the growth of healthcare spending, enhancing remedies against fraud and abuse, adding new transparency requirements for the health care and health insurance industries and imposing additional health policy reforms. Provisions of ACA may negatively affect our future revenues. For example, the ACA requires, among other things, that annual fees be paid by manufacturers for certain branded prescription drugs, that manufacturers participate in a discount program for certain outpatient drugs under Medicare Part D, and that manufacturers provide increased rebates under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program for outpatient drugs dispensed to Medicaid recipients. The ACA also addresses a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for line extensions and expands oversight and support for the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research of services and products.
Previous wording
Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. There have been several United States Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In December 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that federal law does not preempt the states’ ability to regulate pharmaceutical benefit managers (“PBMs”) and other members of the health care and pharmaceutical supply chain, an important decision that may lead to further and more aggressive efforts by states in this area. The Federal Trade Commission in mid-2022 also launched sweeping investigations into the practices of the PBM industry, and published interim reports with its finding in mid-2024 and January 2025, that could lead to additional federal and state legislative or regulatory proposals targeting such entities’ operations, pharmacy networks, or financial arrangements, including in the current 2025-2026 congressional session. During the previous congressional session, numerous bipartisan PBM reforms were considered in both the Senate and the House of Representatives; they include diverse legislative proposals such as eliminating rebates; divorcing service fees from the price of a drug, discount, or rebate; prohibiting spread pricing; limiting administrative fees; requiring PBMs to report formulary placement rationale; promoting transparency. Significant efforts to change the PBM industry as it currently exists in the United States may affect the entire pharmaceutical supply chain and the business of other stakeholders, including biopharmaceutical developers like us. In September 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a policy statement articulating its view that certain “improper” patent listings by drug developers in FDA’s Orange Book represent an unfair trade practice and indicated that industry should be prepared for potential enforcement actions based on its analysis. The FTC followed that action in November 2023 by publicly calling out over 100 “improper” patent listings made by ten large pharmaceutical companies and initiating an FDA administrative process with respect to those patents. The controversy regarding the appropriateness of listing such patents has led to numerous lawsuits alleging anticompe…
Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.
Current wording
Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. There have been several U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In December 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that federal law does not preempt the states’ ability to regulate pharmaceutical benefit managers (“PBMs”) and other members of the health care and pharmaceutical supply chain, an important decision that may lead to further and more aggressive efforts by states in this area. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) in mid-2022 also launched sweeping investigations into the practices of the PBM industry, and published interim reports with its finding in mid-2024 and January 2025, that could lead to additional federal and state legislative or regulatory proposals targeting such entities’ operations, pharmacy networks, or financial arrangements, including in the current 2025-2026 congressional session. During the previous congressional session, numerous bipartisan PBM reforms were considered in both the Senate and the House of Representatives; they include diverse legislative proposals such as eliminating rebates; divorcing service fees from the price of a drug, discount, or rebate; prohibiting spread pricing; limiting administrative fees; requiring PBMs to report formulary placement rationale; promoting transparency. Significant efforts to change the PBM industry as it currently exists in the United States may affect the entire pharmaceutical supply chain and the business of other stakeholders, including biopharmaceutical developers like us. In September 2023, the FTC issued a policy statement articulating its view that certain “improper” patent listings by drug developers in FDA’s Orange Book represent an unfair trade practice and indicated that industry should be prepared for potential enforcement actions based on its analysis. The FTC followed that action in November 2023 by publicly calling out over 100 “improper” patent listings made by ten large pharmaceutical companies and initiating an FDA administrative process with respect to those patents. The controversy regarding the appropriateness of listing such patents has led to numerous lawsuits alleging anticompetitive conduct by biopharmaceu…
Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.
Previous wording
Further, in August 2022, President Biden signed into the law the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”). Among other things, the IRA has multiple provisions that may impact the prices of drug products that are both sold into the Medicare program and throughout the United States. A manufacturer of drugs covered by Medicare Parts B or D must now pay a rebate to the federal government if their drug product’s price increases faster than the rate of inflation. This calculation is made on a drug product by drug product basis and the amount of the rebate owed to the federal government is directly dependent on the volume of a drug product that is paid for by Medicare Parts B or D. Additionally, starting for payment year 2026, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) will negotiate drug prices annually for a select number of single source Part D drugs without generic or biosimilar competition. CMS is negotiating drug prices for a select number of Part B drugs starting for payment year 2028. If a drug product is selected by CMS for negotiation, it is expected that the revenue generated from such drug will decrease. CMS has begun to implement these new authorities, entering into agreements to conduct negotiations with the relevant manufacturers of those selected drugs in October 2023 and ultimately announcing the first round of negotiated prices for the first 10 drugs in August 2024; those negotiated “maximum fair prices” will be effective as of January 1, 2026 (payment year 2026). CMS is currently engaged in its second round of negotiations and published the next 15 drugs selected for negotiation in January 2025. However, the impact of this program on the biopharmaceutical industry in the United States remains uncertain, in part because multiple large pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders (e.g., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) have initiated federal lawsuits against CMS arguing the program is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, among other complaints. The outcome of such ongoing lawsuits, as well as potential legislative changes enacted by Congress or programmatic changes implemented at CMS by the Trump Administration, may impact the IRA drug price negotiation program in the future.
Current wording
Further, in August 2022, President Biden signed into the law the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”). Among other things, the IRA has multiple provisions that may impact the prices of drug products that are both sold into the Medicare program and throughout the United States. A manufacturer of drugs covered by Medicare Parts B or D must now pay a rebate to the federal government if their drug product’s price increases faster than the rate of inflation. This calculation is made on a drug product by drug product basis and the amount of the rebate owed to the federal government is directly dependent on the volume of a drug product that is paid for by Medicare Parts B or D. Additionally, starting for payment year 2026, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) will negotiate drug prices annually for a select number of single source Part D drugs without generic or biosimilar competition. With passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 3, 2025, which was signed into law on July 4, 2025, Congress extended this exemption to drugs and biologics with multiple orphan drug designations.
Previous wording
If we participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program if and when we successfully commercialize a product candidate, we will be required to report certain pricing information for our product to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal agency that administers the Medicaid and Medicare programs. We may also be required to report pricing information to the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. If we become subject to these reporting requirements, we will be liable for errors associated with our submission of pricing data, for failure to report pricing data in a timely manner, and for overcharging government payers, which can result in civil monetary penalties under the Medicaid statute, the federal civil False Claims Act, and other laws and regulations.
Current wording
If we participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program if and when we successfully commercialize a product candidate, we will be required to report certain pricing information for our product to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal agency that administers the Medicaid and Medicare programs. We may also be required to report pricing information to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. If we become subject to these reporting requirements, we will be liable for errors associated with our submission of pricing data, for failure to report pricing data in a timely manner, and for overcharging government payers, which can result in civil monetary penalties under the Medicaid statute, the federal civil False Claims Act, and other laws and regulations.
Showing the first 40 of 53 pairs. Open the source sections for the rest.
Rearranged current paragraphs (2)
Current report — wording carried from elsewhere
We therefore 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 report — wording carried from elsewhere
Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we intend to focus on developing product candidates for specific indications that we identify as most likely to succeed, in terms of both their potential for marketing approval and commercialization. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that may prove to have greater commercial potential. For example, on October 29, 2024, we announced that we suspended development activities for our SPR720 oral program based on an interim analysis of the Phase 2a proof-of-concept study of SPR720 for the treatment of NTM-PD not meeting its primary endpoint. While the data showed antimicrobial activity associated with SPR720, the interim analysis did not show sufficient separation from placebo and highlighted potential dose limiting safety issues in subjects dosed at 1,000 mg orally once daily, including three cases of reversible grade 3 hepatotoxicity. In evaluating the totality of both the efficacy and safety data, we elected to suspend our development program for SPR720 and continue to determine next steps. As a result, we have restructured our operations to focus on supporting the development of tebipenem HBr and other corporate activities while we continue to seek a pathway forward for SPR720. Further, in March 2025, we announced that we have discontinued development of SPR206.
Rearranged previous paragraphs (1)
Previous report — wording carried elsewhere
Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we intend to focus on developing product candidates for specific indications that we identify as most likely to succeed, in terms of both their potential for marketing approval and commercialization. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that may prove to have greater commercial potential.